904 F. Supp. 870 - Atchley v. Heritage Cable Vision Associates’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1447 · 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. · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supremacy Clause of Art. VI of the United States Constitution grants to Congress the power to preempt state law. Congress exercised this power by enacting § 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a)----” Loewen Group Int’l, Inc. v. Haberichter, 65 F.3d 1417, 1420 (7th Cir.1995) (citations omitted). Section 301(a) of the LMRA provides: Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, 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 parties. 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a). In addition to providing federal jurisdiction over actions involving collective bargaining agreements, § 301 authorizes federal courts to fashion federal common law for enforcement of these agreements. Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448 , 77 S.Ct. 912 , 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957); see also Loewen Group Int’l, Inc. v. Haberichter, 65 F.3d at 1421 (“This section provides federal court jurisdiction over controversies involving collective bargaining agreements and also authorizes federal courts to fashion a body of federal law for the enforcement of those agreements.”). A court must apply federal law when resolving such disputes to “ensure uniform interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements, and thus to promote the peaceable, consis”
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.