Bonds v. Coca-Cola Co.’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 1324 · 1986
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. (1987), In the Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Incorporated (1995)
65 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · United States v. Kubrick · Holmberg v. Armbrecht
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A union is never obliged to contest an award in court in order to discharge its duty of fair representation....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“collateral allusions to a legal issue do not require the court to decide difficult questions”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We therefore held in Freeman [u Teamsters, 746 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir.1984),] that the date of the arbitrator’s decision is the critical one for purposes of DelCostello , because on that date the employees know or could discover that they have a potential claim against their union.”
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.