← 809 F.2d 594 - Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. J.L.M. Construction Co.

Carpenters Southern California Administrative Corp. v. J.L.M. Construction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

809 F.2d 594 · 1987

Citation profile

cited by 17 later decisions

July 1994

most recently cited

10 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 186 (§ 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · United States v. McConney · United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense

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

“[A]n employer can repudiate [an agreement] ... by engaging in conduct so overtly inconsistent with contractual obligations that it is sufficient to put the union on notice of the employer's intent to repudiate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 441 v. KBR Electric · C.E.K. Industrial Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
“[w]hether an employer's conduct is sufficiently overt and inconsistent with the terms of a pre-hire agreement to put a union on notice of an employer's repudiation involves an essentially factual inquiry.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Local International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Tatonetti Construction Services Corp · Local 673, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers v. Tatonetti Const. Services Corp.
“did not perform any of [the] obligations under the pre-hire agreement, and ... never attempted to enjoy any benefits of the agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. C.E.K. Industrial Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

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.