Mountaineer Gas Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 606 · 1996
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 627 (2001), First National Supermarkets, Inc. v. Retail, Wholesale & Chain Store Food Employees Union Local 338 (1997)
24 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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 of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco, Inc. · Adams v. Barclays American Business Credit, Inc. · Remmey v. Painewebber, 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when the collective bargaining agreement reserves to management the right to make and enforce disciplinary rules, any rules or policies promulgated in accordance with that authority are thus incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement and have the force of contract language.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the arbitrator’s role as defined by the [agreement]; (2) whether the award ignored the plain language of the [agreement]; and (3) whether the arbitrator’s discretion in formulating the award comported with the essence of the [agreement’s] proscribed limits.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award. The requirement that the award “draw its essence” from the parties’ agreement means that the arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract. When the arbitrator ignores the unambiguous language chosen by the parties, the arbitrator simply fails to do his job.”
3 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.