Mims v. Teamsters Local No. 728’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 1568 · 1987
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 2024
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 412 · 29 U.S.C. § 481 · 29 U.S.C. § 482
Relies on Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Hall v. Cole · Trbovich v. United Mine Workers · Alder v. United States · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In its order denying attorney's fees, the district court questioned the continued efficacy of the Hall [v. Cole , 412 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1943 , 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973),] Court's common benefit analysis in light of the Court's subsequent decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Sc'y , 421 U.S. 240 , 95 S.Ct. 1612 , 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), which denied attorney fees under the `private attorney general' approach, to environmental groups that sued to bar construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. We respectfully disagree with the district court because the `common benefit' exception was not at issue in Alyeska ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“enforceable at the suit of any bona fide candidate for [union office] in the district court of the United States.”
1 later decision 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.