Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States Railroad Retirement Board’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Jones v. Bernanke (2009), American Wildlands v. Kempthorne (2008)
27 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Federal Election Commission v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Carducci v. Regan · Kalmich v. Bruno
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“decline to resolve this issue on the basis of briefing which consisted of [not even] three sentences in the ... brief and no discussion of the ... relevant case law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“on the basis of briefing which consisted of only three sentences in [petitioner's] brief and no discussion of the relevant statutory text, legislative history, or relevant case law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Board does not consider a foreign law which merely creates a preference for foreign citizens or residents to be a law which requires the hiring of the country's citizens or residents. In other words, if the foreign law simply provides that, other things being equal, a citizen or resident of that country should be employed in preference to a non-citizen or non-resident, the Board would not consider that the exclusion should apply. However, where restrictions are imposed which result in a U.S. citizen or resident not being on an equal footing with the citizen or resident, the degree to which the restrictions create a barrier to employment of U.S. citizens will be considered to determine whether these re strictions in effect require the employment of foreign citizens or residents, in whole or in part. In determining whether a law merely creates a preference or, in fact, constitutes a law which requires an employer to employ, in whole or in part citizens or residents of the country, the Board will look not only to the wording of the foreign law, but also to intention [sic] of the foreign government in enacting the provision. If the intention was to ensure that local citizens and residents would be hired in whole or in part, the Board will consider the law to be a law which requires an employer to employ in whole or in part.”
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.