Graf v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.2d 771 · 1983
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Malhotra v. Cotter & Co. (1989), Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company (1985)
44 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 184 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Vaca v. Sipes · Bell v. Hood · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala.
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A union is not required to prosecute a grievance that it honestly believes lacks merit.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“deliberately and unjustifiably refuses to represent [the] worker”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“extreme recklessness (which) is so close to intentional wrongdoing that the law treats it as the same thing.” Id. at 778-79 . 8 . Plaintiff attempts to distinguish his allegations by claiming that in this case, not only did the union representative fail to keep him advised of developments in the processing of his grievance, but that he did so after assuring plaintiff that he would do otherwise. While the court recognizes that an argument of detrimental reliance has some merit in the context of the timeliness of the filing of the complaint, in this context it is a distinction that simply cannot make a difference. It certainly does not transform an omission which is not actionable into conduct which is “clearly arbitrary under the Vaca principal,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.