Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 773 F.2d 530 - Local International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers Inc

Local International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Jersey Coast Egg Producers Inc’s Empirical Analysis

773 F.2d 530 · 1985

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Dluhos v. Strasberg (2003), Miller v. Runyon (1996)

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

1701985199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 9 U.S.C. § 9

Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd · Wilko v. Swan

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “that the district court [is] bound to enforce the award unless it could be said that the collective bargaining agreement, as construed, [is] contrary to law or against public policy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “An award may be set aside only in limited circumstances, for example, where the arbitrators’s decision manifests disregard for the law rather than an erroneous interpretation of the law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[f]raud, partiality, misconduct, violation of a specific command of law, or vagueness rendering enforcement impractical, or a showing that enforcement would be contrary to public policy.”
    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.