Lewis v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 771’s Empirical Analysis
826 F.2d 1310 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Wooddell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 71 (1991), Brenner v. Local United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (1991)
13 federal appellate · 5 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. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 412
Relies on DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company · Smith v. Evening News Assn. · United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees ... or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]every federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts, in every appeal presented to it, regardless of whether the parties contest jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We emphasize that the statutory language of Section 301(a) does not state that suit under that section must be brought by a labor organization. It states only that the suit must be based on a contract between labor organizations (emphasis added).”
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.