Coal Company Wp v. United Mine Workers of America’s Empirical Analysis
704 F.2d 690 · 1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines (1987), Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1992)
11 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 29 U.S.C. § 106 (Norris-LaGuardia Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 187 (§ 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny · United States v. Schooner Peggy
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Some of our cases have spoken about immutable characteristics, but in context those references were merely indications of class characteristics which should be treated analogously with race. The question whether the statute protects against conspiracies, not involving state action, aimed at political classes, as well as classes whose members have the requisite immutable characteristics is an open one in this court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the President of the District, acting within the scope of his authority and with the approval of the Executive Board, established a legal defense fund for the payment of fines, counsel fees and costs, as an encouragement for illegal activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he voucher payments were made from District 5's general fund with knowledge that the pickets being paid had engaged in illegal secondary activity. Payments from the legal defense fund were made with the same knowledge.”
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.