Rca Corporation v. Local International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers’s Empirical Analysis
700 F.2d 921 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc. (1987), Dayton Independent School District v. U.S. Mineral Products Co. (1990)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston · Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co. · United States v. Leppo · Retail Clerks International Ass'n v. Lion Dry Goods, Inc.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“mere mentioning of the Retirement Plan in the General [collective bargaining] Agreement is insufficient reason to construe the Retirement Plan as part and parcel of the General Agreement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The central question which underlies these ... appeals is whether the filing of a notice of appeal by - a party divests a trial judge of jurisdiction. “In United States v. Leppo, 634 F.2d 101, 104 (3d Cir.1980), Judge Aldisert, writing for a unanimous court, explained: “ ‘[O]rdinarily the trial court loses its power to proceed once a party files a notice of appeal. [Citations omitted]. This rule is not based on statutory provisions or the rules of procedure. Rather, it is a judge-made rule designed to avoid confusion or waste of time that might flow from putting the same issues before two eourts at the same time. As Professor Moore has observed, the rule “should not be employed to defeat its purpose or to induce needless paper shuffling.” 9 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 203.11 at 3-44 n. 1 (1980); see C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & E. Gressman, Federal Practice, and Procedure § 3949, at 358-59 (1977) (emphasis added.)’ [[Image here]] “We agree with Judge Aldisert’s reasoning in Leppo, 634 F.2d at 104 , that the rule which requires a trial judge to divest himself of a case once a party has filed a notice of. appeal ‘should not be employed to defeat its purpose or to induce unnecessary paper shuffling.’ Id. “In the instant case the trial judge vacated the [order granting an extension of time for appeal] because he had relied upon misrepresentations by [the cross-appellant’s] counsel and because he erroneously believed [the cross-appellant’s] motion.was unopposed. Because of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. Emerson“no provision ... that either brings or seeks to bring the Retirement Plan within the ambit of the General Agreement.”
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.