Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 F.2d 85 - Dobbs Inc v. Local No International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America

Dobbs Inc v. Local No International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America’s Empirical Analysis

813 F.2d 85 · 1987

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Ohio Office of Collective Bargaining v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 11 (1991), Eberhard Foods, Inc. v. Handy (1989)

18 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

3401987199020002010decided

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

Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Goldman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · Oklahoma v. Arkansas · Cement Divisions, National Gypsum Co. v. United Steelworkers of America

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

  1. “(1) an award conflicts with express terms of the collective bargaining agreement, (2) an award imposes additional requirements that are not expressly provided in the agreement, (3) an award is without rational support or cannot be rationally derived from the terms of the agreement, and (4) an award is based on general considerations of fairness and equity instead of the precise terms of the agreement.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “arbitrator is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement, and although he may construe ambiguous contract language, he is without authority to disregard or modify plain and unambiguous provisions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the arbitrator was creating a contract of his own, rather than applying the contract agreed to by the parties....”
    2 later decisions 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.