Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 881 F.2d 20 - Berda v. CBS Inc.

Berda v. CBS Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

881 F.2d 20 · 1989

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
7
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Simmons v. City of Philadelphia (1991), Trans Penn Wax Corporation v. Michael Mccandless (1995)

19 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions

31019891990200020102020decided

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 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. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon

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

  1. “Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he subject matter of [Section] 301 “is peculiarly one that calls for uniform law.” ... The possibility that individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements. Because neither party could be certain of the rights which it had obtained or conceded, the process of negotiating an agreement would be made immeasurably more difficult by the necessity of trying to formulate contract provisions in such a way as to contain the same meaning under two or more systems of law which might some day be invoked in enforcing the contract. Once the collective bargain was made, the possibility of competing legal systems would tend to stimulate and prolong disputes as to its interpretation ... [and] might substantially impede the parties’ willingness to agree to contract terms providing for final arbitral or judicial resolution of disputes. 10”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “of no consequence, because [the employees] need not refer to ... the collective bargaining agreement in order to make out [their] claim.”
    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.