Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 11 v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
760 F.2d 1006 · 1985
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Mesa Verde Construction Co. v. Northern California District Council of Laborers (1988), Dayton Typographic Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1985)
43 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Ford Motor Company v. National Labor Relations Board · Engle v. Isaac · PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins · Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Nevis Industries, 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'whether under all of the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tends to restrain, coerce or interfere with rights guaranteed by the Act.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 157.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'under all the circumstances the interrogation reasonably tend[ed] to restrain or interfere with the employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Act.' " Id. at 1008 (citation omitted). 105 These differing standards represent a classic example of the Board applying the statute to everyday situations. The review in those cases is directed towards the Board's manner of enforcing the Act, not to the meaning of the statutory language itself. As in all cases which apply the law to everyday circumstances, the proper scope of review of the Board's standard in Hotel was "for rationality and consistency with the Act.”
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.