Derwin v. General Dynamics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.2d 484 · 1983
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 25 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Associated Brick Mason Contractors of Greater New York, Inc. v. Harrington (1987), American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service (1987)
41 federal appellate · 25 district · 9 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. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 9
Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Washington Post Co. v. Rebozo
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Only where an arbitral award is both clearly intended to have a prospective effect and there is no colorable basis for denying the applicability of the existing award to a dispute at hand, will a court order compliance with the award rather than require the parties to proceed anew through the contract grievance procedure.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“relatively lengthy period[s] for actions to confirm do[ ] not threaten the finality of arbitral awards”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“But while this is a possible procedure, we question the need for or wisdom of this bifurcated approach. It seems to us cumbersome, unnecessary, and potentially misleading—especially as an order of confirmation issued in a factual vacuum may result in unpredictable pressure and aspersions upon the party against whom the order runs. Entry of a declaration “confirming” the award may be taken to imply that the defendant is in fact violating it. Courts, after all, do not enjoin parties from violating the law without proof of a real likelihood that such will happen. At very least, it is hard to fathom what the present debate over confirmation portends. Both parties profess to agree that the Stutz award is binding. A decree confirming it at this time will merely give the parties something more to argue about. Under the circumstances, Article Ill’s prudential values and concerns of judicial economy strongly counsel against the entry of a confirmatory order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.