Neece v. Kantu’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 47 state decisions

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

1. “"It is our conclusion that statements made either by representatives of management or by representatives of an employee at a conference and bargaining session having for its purpose the adjustment of a grievance of the employee or other peaceable disposition of such grievance are unqualifiedly privileged. [Emphasis added]" The reason given for absolute immunity was that statements clearly germane to the issues involved, if not accorded absolute immunity, would interfere with the national labor policy of the United States. For comments on Mendicki, supra, see 15 Univ. of Kan.L.Rev. 553 (1967). Bostwick, the author, concluded [pp. 567, 568]: "The court apparently applied state defamation law, finding that state law would grant an unqualified privilege to statements made during the course of a labor grievance proceeding. The court recognized that the national labor policy would be impaired if defamation remedies were awarded in the Mendicki case. Having arrived at this determination, the court held the statements to be `unqualifiedly privileged.' * * * * * * "Considering the factual situation presented in Mendicki , the Tenth Circuit should have held that state defamation actions are absolutely barred as to statements made by participants during the course of a labor grievance proceedings. Only by such a decision could the court adequately have insured that the national labor policy, as defined by Congress, would be given the full play required by the Supreme Court." Mendicki, s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kloch v. Ratcliffe

2. “In Mendicki, supra, the defamation occurred during Step Four in a hearing before an impartial umpire. In Mock, supra, defamation occurred during a hearing under Step Four before the National Railroad Adjustment Board. Do the same rules apply during a hearing under Step Two before a company hearing officer? We believe they do. As the hearing officer, Furst was bound to comply with the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Collective Bargaining Agreement ordered the decision to be presented in writing as a "peaceable disposition of such grievance." Furst's letter was "clearly germane to the issues involved." To fail in this respect would violate the agreement. We conclude that Furst's defamatory statements were absolutely privileged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kloch v. Ratcliffe

3. “The grievance proceeding under a collective bargaining agreement is quite similar to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court has stated that the grievance procedure is `an effort to erect a system of industrial self-government' in which `a new common law—the common law of a particular industry or of a particular plant' is fashioned and applied. The grievance procedure is merely an agreed upon substitute for legal action in a judicial forum and is actually quasi-judicial in nature.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kloch v. Ratcliffe