Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 699 F.2d 552 - Early v. Eastern Transfer

Early v. Eastern Transfer’s Empirical Analysis

699 F.2d 552 · 1983

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
4
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 26 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1986), United States v. Mottolo (1985)

47 federal appellate · 26 district · 9 state decisions

5101983199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Vaca v. Sipes · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Michel v. United States

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

  1. “While it may be unpleasant to have to choose between possibly alienating a de-cisionmaker in advance by objecting and waiving the issue of bias, we cannot accept that parties have a right to keep two strings in their bow — to seek victory before the tribunal and then, having lost, seek to overturn it for bias never before claimed.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must decide each case honestly and conscientiously on its merits.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A union may not arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory fashion.” ... However, the fact that the grievance was meritorious does not establish a breach of the duty of fair representation or entitle the grievant to escape the bar of finality imposed by the collective bargaining agreement, for “[t]he grievance process cannot be expected to be error-free.” ... There must be a separate showing of a union breach that “seriously undermined the integrity of the arbitral process.” ... Mere negligence of the union does not amount to such a breach.”
    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.