Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union v. Danziger’s Empirical Analysis
709 F.2d 815 · 1983
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2007 · most notably Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union Local 54 Danziger (1984), Ambromovage v. United Mine Workers (1984)
18 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 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Burford v. Sun Oil Co. · Hines v. Davidowitz
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[N]o [ Burford ] argument can be entertained based on disruption of a state administrative scheme in a case in which the court is asked to decide whether the very existence of that scheme violates a paramount federal statute”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Because no preliminary injunction was entered [by the U.S. District Court] the Commission went forward with a disqualification hearing. Its subsequent actions were called to the attention of the district court in a motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c), for reconsideration of the issuance of an injunction pending this appeal. On September 28, 1982 the Commission issued an opinion in which it found that President Frank Gerace, Executive Board member Frank Materio and Business Agent Karlos LaSane were disqualified under the criteria of section 86. Gerace and Materio were held to be disqualified under section 86(f) because they were associated with members of organized crime in a manner inimical to the policy of the Act and to gaming operations. LaSane was disqualified under section 86(c) because he had been convicted in 1973 of extortion from persons doing business with Atlantic City while he was a City Commissioner. The Commission concluded that the Union should be barred from collecting dues from its members employed in the casino industry. [Upon application by plaintiffs under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b),] the district court ordered that the Commission be enjoined, pending this appeal, from taking any steps to enforce section 93 or its September 28, 1982 decision. That order did not prohibit the Commission from rendering an opinion interpreting section 93(b) with respect to the Union's administration of pension and welfare funds. On October 12, 1982 the Commission issued an opinion ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No labor organization, union or affiliate registered or required to be registered pursuant to this section and representing or seeking to represent employees licensed or registered under this act may receive any dues from any employee licensed or registered under this act and employed by a casino licensee or its agent, or administer any pension or welfare funds, if any officer, agent, or principal employee of the labor organization, union or affiliate is disqualified in accordance with the criteria contained in section 86 of this act. The commission may for the purposes of this subsection waive any disqualification criterion consistent with the public policy of this act and upon a finding that the interests of justice so require.”
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.