Communications Workers of America v. Western Electric Company Inc’s Empirical Analysis
860 F.2d 1137 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably International Union v. Cummins, Inc. (2006), Raytheon Company v. Automated Business Systems Inc (1989)
16 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 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)) · 9 U.S.C. § 12 (Federal Arbitration Act)
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Wilson v. Garcia · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he glance in the direction of the state-law cupboard should not be an automatic or reflexive one.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A long period of controversy ... can poison the relationship between the contracting parties....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the scales were weighted differently. An action to confirm arbitration takes place after the processes of dispute resolution have run their course.... For that reason, applying a relatively lengthy statute of limitations to confirmation actions does not implicate the finality of arbitral awards. This, of course, was among our core concerns in Derwin , for that very finality would be disserved by establishing a crabbed limitation period after which an award could not be confirmed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.