Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 834 F.2d 884 - United Association Of Journeymen And Apprentices Of The Plumbing And Pipe Fitting Industry Of The United States And Canada, Local Number 57 v. Bechtel Power Corporation

United Association Of Journeymen And Apprentices Of The Plumbing And Pipe Fitting Industry Of The United States And Canada, Local Number 57 v. Bechtel Power Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Ethridge V. Harbor House Restaurant (1988), Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. (1992)

18 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

2101988199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian

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

  1. “federal courts look beyond the allegations of the complaint ... to determine whether the wrong complained of actually arises in some manner from a breach of the defendants' obligations under a collective bargaining agreement.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]laintiffs ... often [attempt] to avoid federal jurisdiction under § 301 by framing their complaints in terms of such diverse state law theories as wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and misrepresentation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`questions relating to what the parties to a labor agreement agreed, and what legal consequences were intended to flow from breaches of that agreement.'”
    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.