Espinal v. Northwest Airlines’s Empirical Analysis
90 F.3d 1452 · 1996
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc. (1998), Saridakis v. United Airlines (1999)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 151A · 49 U.S.C. § 41310
Relies on Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Soberon v. United States · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Does the CBA contain provisions that govern the actions giving rise to the state claim? (2) Is the state statute 'sufficiently clear' so that the claim can be evaluated without consideration of overlapping provisions in the CBA? (3) Has the state shown an intent not to allow the statute to be altered or removed by private contract?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To determine whether the claim is preempted by the RLA, courts should apply the preemption test used in cases under the[LMRA].”
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.