Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 667 F.2d 800 - Todd v. Jim McNeff, Inc.

Todd v. Jim McNeff, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

667 F.2d 800 · 1982

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd (1983), Carpenters Local Union No of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Pratt-Farnsworth Inc (1982)

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

4701982199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers · Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp. · South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers · New Mexico District Council of Carpenters v. Mayhew Co.

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The [NLRB] has expertise in determining the majority status of a union at any given time. It has no apparatus for determining a union's past status. . . . Recreation of past relationships for the purpose of resolving factual disputes is one of the traditional functions of a trial court, and not a process in which the N.L.R.B. has any extraordinary expertise. Therefore, in this opinion we do not extend the District Court's jurisdiction into an area in which the N.L.R.B. exercises exclusive authority.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in some circumstances noncompliance can be so bald as to put the union on notice of the employer's intent to repudiate.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an employer is able to exercise the right of repudiation until the union achieves a majority status.”
    2 later decisions 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.