Gottfried v. Frankel’s Empirical Analysis
818 F.2d 485 · 1987
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1990), Fleischut v. Nixon Detroit Diesel, Inc. (1988)
33 federal appellate · 6 district ·
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. § 157 (§ 7 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Katz · Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Angle v. Sacks · Seeler v. Trading Port, Inc. · Shattuck Denn Mining Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a complaint ... charging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor practice, to petition any United States district court ... for appropriate temporary relief or restraining order. Upon the filing of any such petition the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon such person, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to grant to the Board such temporary relief or restraining order as it deems just and proper.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“need not convince the court of the validity of the Board's theory of liability, as long as the theory is substantial and not frivolous.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e find no authority for the proposition that district courts are required to consider the delay in filing a section 10(j) petition, or that a failure to consider the delay is a proper basis for overturning the grant of injunctive relief. Rather than requiring a consideration of the number of days or months which have passed between the issuance of a complaint and the seeking of section 10(j) relief, we believe the appropriate focus is on whether it is necessary to return the parties to status quo pending the Board’s proceedings in order to protect the Board’s remedial powers under the NLRA, and whether achieving status quo is possible.”
5 later decisions 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.