Sweeney v. Pence’s Empirical Analysis
767 F.3d 654 · 2014
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 159 (§ 9 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 164 (§ 14 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 401 (Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959)
Relies on Vaca v. Sipes · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · William Marbury v. James Madison · Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Continental Inc v. Gte Sylvania Incorporated
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No person may require, as a condition of obtaining or continuing employment, an individual to do any of the following: 1. Refrain or resign from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of a labor organization. 2. Become or remain a member of a labor organization. 3. Pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses of any kind or amount, or provide anything of value, to a labor organization. 4. Pay to any 3rd party an amount that is in place of, equivalent to, or any portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses required of members of, or employees represented by, a labor organization.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress explicitly permitted states that did restrict [union security agreements] to find their own solution to the free-rider problem, if it was a problem in those states. Indeed, unions continue to thrive and assert significant influence in several right to work states, including Iowa, where provisions equivalent to Indiana’s have been effect for more than sixty-five years. If the Plaintiff-Appellants believe that Indiana’s law will create a new or unexpectedly severe free-rider problem, they may address those views to Congress.”
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.