Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 671 F.2d 752 - Arco-Polymers, Inc. v. Local 8-74

Arco-Polymers, Inc. v. Local 8-74’s Empirical Analysis

671 F.2d 752 · 1982

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Mobil Oil Corporation 81-2582 81-2583 v. Independent Oil Workers Union (1982), Stroehmann Bakeries Inc v. Local International Brotherhood Teamsters (1992)

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

31019821990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Wilko v. Swan · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc. · General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

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

  1. “[e]mployees absent from work without good and sufficient cause for more than four (4) consecutive days shall be subject to discharge,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “might be viewed as confusing and subject to various interpretations”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... if the interpretation can in any rational way be derived from the agreement, viewed in the light of its language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties’ intention; only where there is a manifest disregard of the agreement, totally unsupported by principles of contract construction and the law of the shop, may a reviewing court disturb the award, (footnote omitted)”
    3 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.