Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 807 FSUPP2D 142 - United States v. Larson

United States v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
April 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Hobbs Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)

Relies on Dombrowski v. Pfister · Thornhill v. Alabama · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · United States v. Lanier · Jordan v. De George

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

  1. “In a legitimate strike situation, the union has a lawful platform on which to seek higher wages and better terms for its members. However, when a union pursues agreements with new employers through primary tactics of violence, threats, and intimidation, it does not have a lawful platform on which to claim the property of the employer. The use of such tactics is therefore “wrongful” under the Hobbs Act.”
    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.