Dougherty v. Parsec, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
872 F.2d 766 · 1989
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Smolarek v. Chrysler Corp. (1989), DeCoe v. General Motors Corp. (1994)
25 federal appellate · 2 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. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Engle v. Isaac · School Board of Nassau County, Florida, Et Al. v. Arline · Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The basic principle of such an action is that one who, without privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes a third party not to enter into or continue, a business relationship with another, or perform a contract with another is liable to the other for the harm caused, thereby. We hold that to conclude that the defendant is liable for business interference, a finder of facts must find that: (1) defendant’s conduct interfered with the business rights of plaintiffs, and (2) taking into consideration the situation and relationship of the parties, such conduct on the part of the defendant lacked any privilege as defined above____ The issue of business interference, including the question of privilege, should be submitted to the jury. 11”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, courts must determine whether resolving the state-law claim would require interpretation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. If so, the claim is preempted. Second, courts must ascertain whether the rights claimed by the plaintiff were created by the collective bargaining agreement, or instead by state law. If the rights were created by the collective bargaining agreement, the claim is preempted. In short, if a state-law claim fails either of these two requirements, it is preempted by § 301.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hahn v. Rauch“an underlying determination of the merits of the state claim will not have to consider whether there was an actual breach of contract--only whether there was an interference by [the Union and Minnie Fox's co-workers] that in some way affected the business relationship of”
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.