Carrier Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 778 · 1985
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Teamsters Local Union No. 171 v. National Labor Relations Board (1988), Swallows v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc. (1997)
24 federal appellate · 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Transportation Management Corp. · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Boire v. Greyhound Corp. · Florida v. Royer · National Labor Relations Board v. Wright Line, a Division of Wright Line, 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he proper legal standard to determine if a joint employer relationship exists is, “Where two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees— where from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment — they constitute 'joint employers’ within the meaning of the NLRA.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he credibility determinations made by the [ALJ] and adopted by the Board are entitled to great weight.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, because the joint employer issue is simply a factual determination, a slight difference between two cases might tilt a case toward a finding of a joint employ-ment_ Second, the only question before this Court is whether in this particular case there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that [the petitioner] was a joint employer. As we have discussed in the text, we believe there was ample evidence to support such a finding. Whether there could have been substantial evidence to support a finding of joint employment in the above-cited Board decisions is not an issue before the Court.”
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.