Clark v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 1102 · 1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Industrial Turnaround Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board (1997), United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n (2013)
12 federal appellate ·
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. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 103, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers · Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd · Audit Services, Inc. v. Rolfson · Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Beck Engineering & Surveying Co. · Kemmis v. McGoldrick
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a pre-hire agreement may be repudiated at any time by either party prior to the union's achievement of majority status.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall not be an unfair labor practice under subsections (a) and (b) of this section for an employer engaged primarily in the building and construction industry to make an agreement covering employees engaged (or who, upon their employment, will be engaged) in the building and construction industry with a labor organization of which building and construction employees are members ... because (1) the majority status of such labor organization has not been established[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“would bring about the repudiation of a § 8(f) agreement). We therefore hold that the letter from ITAC to NECA and the Union operated as an effective repudiation of the 1992-94 collective-bargaining agreement. 29 ITAC's letter operated as an effective repudiation, even though it did not comply with the termination provision in the letter of assent, which provided that termination could be effectuated only by ITAC's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.