Weimer v. Kurz-Kasch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.2d 669 · 1985
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Thurman v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. (1996), Hansen v. White Motor Corp. (1986)
45 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. · United States v. Monton · Rose v. Lundy · International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Uaw v. Yard-Man 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The company shall pay the cost ... [of the designated benefits] as long as such employee remains retired and unemployed, either by the company or by anyone else.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[C]ontract interpretation is generally 'a question of law not subject to the clearly erroneousstandard' . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court should first look to the explicit language of the collective bargaining agreement for clear manifestations of intent. The intended meaning of even the most explicit language can, of course, only be understood in light of the context which gave rise to its inclusion. The Court should also interpret each provision in question as part of the integrated whole. If possible, each provision should be construed consistently with the entire document and the relevant positions and purposes of the parties. As in all contracts, the collective bargaining agreement’s terms must be construed so as to render none nugatory and avoid illusory promises. Where ambiguities exist, the court may look to other words and phrases in the collective bargaining agreement for guidance. Variations in language used in other durational provisions of the agreement may, for example, provide inferences of intent useful in clarifying a provision whose intended duration is ambiguous. Finally, the court should review the interpretation ultimately derived from its examination of the language, context and other indicia of intent for consistency with federal labor law.”
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.