In re District No 1--Pacific Coast District Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association v.’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Camping Construction Co. v. District Council of Iron Workers (1990), McNeill v. New York City Housing Authority (1989)
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As for (Trinidad, Crest, Clayton and CTOA’s) second argument, concerning the possibility of facing inconsistent arbitration awards, we find this contention to be squarely foreclosed by the Supreme Court decision in Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U.S. 261 [ 84 S.Ct. 401 , 11 L.Ed.2d 320 ] (1964). In Carey , the International Union of Electrical Workers (IUE) was the certified bargaining representative of “all production and maintenance employees” at the plant where the controversy arose; “salaried, technical” employees were specifically excluded. * * * IUE filed a grievance asserting that certain employees represented by Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions (Federation) were performing production and maintenance work. * * * Westinghouse refused to arbitrate, claiming the controversy concerned a representation matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, * * *. The United States Supreme Court * * * held that the dispute should go to arbitration. The Court held that, whether the dispute was jurisdictional or representational in nature, the availability of recourse to the NLRB did not preclude contract arbitration. Id. at 268 [ 84 S.Ct. at 407 ]. . A second issue in the case arose out of the fact that “only one of the two unions involved in the controversy [had] moved the state courts to compel arbitration.” Id. at 265 , [ 84 S.Ct. at 405 ]. Therefore, as the Court further stated, “unless the other union intervenes, an adjudicatio”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) That unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed unless restrained or have been committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat or unlawful act excepting against the person or persons, association, or organization making the threat or committing the unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof; (b) That substantial and irreparable injury to complainant’s property will follow; (c) That as to each item of relief granted greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of relief; (d) That complainant has no adequate remedy at law; and (e) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Strict adherence to the Act's procedures is not a mere matter of form: A district court has no jurisdiction under the Norris-La Guardia Act to issue a labor injunction without adhering to the explicit terms of the Act.”
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.