Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 852 F.2d 430 - Laws v. Calmat

Laws v. Calmat’s Empirical Analysis

852 F.2d 430 · 1988

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2002 · most notably Amoco Petroleum Additives Company Ag Jackson (1992), Schlacter-Jones v. General Telephone of California (1991)

22 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

220198819902000decided

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. § 1291 · 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. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Olguin v. Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. · Young v. Anthony's Fish Grottos, Inc.

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

  1. “[a] drug and alcohol testing program, upon which all employees' continued employment depends, is a working condition whether or not it is specifically discussed in the [collective bargaining agreement].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an established or recognized state-law claim,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A ] defendant cannot, merely by injecting a federal question into an action that asserts what is plainly a state-law claim, transform the action into one arising under federal law, thereby selecting the forum in which the claim shall be litigated.”
    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.