Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 717 F.2d 157 - International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Texas International Airlines, Inc.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America v. Texas International Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

717 F.2d 157 · 1983

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2015
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1985), Frank Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association International Afl-Cio, Taca Airlines, S.A. And Charles J. Huttinger (1990)

37 federal appellate · 7 district ·

2901983199020002010decided

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 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 152 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 156 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 184 (Railway Labor Act)

Relies on Elgin Ry Co v. Burley · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board · Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad · Corallo v. United States · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.

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

  1. “because to do so would necessarily have the effect, at least during the period of the injunction, of deciding the representational issue.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a congressional intent to allow [the NMB] alone to consider the post-merger problems that arise from existing collective bargaining agreements.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A carrier does not have the power unilaterally to abrogate a collective bargaining agreement. So long as the operating unit is not dramatically altered by a merger that erases the Union’s majority status, the Company must adhere to its compacts. After a merger that makes the employee group hitherto represented by the Union a minority of the craft, the question of employee representation inevitably arises. When this happens, resolution of that question is the function of the National Mediation Board.”
    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.