Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 784 F.2d 1 - Doty v. Sewall

Doty v. Sewall’s Empirical Analysis

784 F.2d 1 · 1986

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
May 2017
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Reed v. United Transportation Union (1989), Davis v. United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers (1986)

23 federal appellate · 4 district ·

2001986199020002010decided

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. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 482 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell

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

  1. “'does not affect any interpretation or effect any reinterpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.... There is no erosion of the finality of private settlements.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “dissension within a union naturally affects that union's activities and effectiveness in the collective bargaining arena.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an analogous state statute with anywhere near the aptness and closeness of fit of the Massachusetts civil rights statute in this case.”
    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.