Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 666 F.2d 202 - Seymour v. Olin Corp.

Seymour v. Olin Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

666 F.2d 202 · 1982

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Bowen v. United States Postal Service (1983), Castelli v. Douglas Aircraft Co. (1985)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

2901982199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Vaca v. Sipes · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In the context of employee grievances, the duty of fair representation is not a straitjacket which forces unions to pursue grievance remedies under the collective bargaining agreement in every case where an employee has a complaint against the company... A union is accorded considerable discretion in dealing with grievance matters, and it may consider the interests of all its members when deciding whether or not to press • the claims of the individual employee. Thus, the failure of a union to process an employee’s grievance, even if it is possible to demonstrate that the grievance is meritorious, does not necessarily give rise to a breach of the duty of fair representation. (citations omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`In the context of employee grievances, the duty of fair representation is not a straitjacket which forces unions to pursue grievance remedies under the collective bargaining agreement in every case where an employee has a complaint against the company.... A union is accorded considerable discretion in dealing with grievance matters, and it may consider the interests of all its members when deciding whether or not to press the claims of an individual employee.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a decision to be nonarbitrary must be (1) based upon relevant, permissible union factors which excludes [sic] the possibility of it being , based upon motivations such as personal animosity or political favoritism; (2) a rational result of the consideration of those factors; and (3) inclusive of a fair and impartial consideration of the interests of all employees.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.