Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 700 F.2d 727 - Drukker Communications, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

Drukker Communications, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis

700 F.2d 727 · 1983

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
December 2015
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2015

17 federal appellate ·

1101983199020002010decided

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. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 161 (§ 11 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 556 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946) · 5 U.S.C. § 706

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Morgan · United States v. Reynolds · National Labor Relations Board v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. · Detroit Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board

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

  1. “[T]he highly sensitive and delicate role of the Board Agent in processing and resolving unfair labor practice and representation cases would be seriously impaired if a real likelihood existed of the Board Agent's becoming enmeshed as a witness in cases to which he has been assigned.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “petitioner is not urging an agreement which contradicts, or even makes an exception to, the language of the stipulation, except as that language has been given legal content (contrary to the views of the Regional Director) by subsequent Board decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the nature of the alleged [oral] agreement is fully consistent with the language of the stipulation”
    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.