Dahnke v. Teamsters Local 695’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.2d 1192 · 1990
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Glaverbel Societe Anonyme v. Northlake Marketing & Supply, Inc. (1995), Brubaker v. City of Richmond (1991)
35 federal appellate · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Vaca v. Sipes · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. · Ford Motor Co v. Huffman International Union United Automobile Aircraft and Agricultural Implementworkers of America Ci
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney ... certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to impose a continuing duty upon attorneys to dismiss claims that are no longer viable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the individual employee could compel arbitration of his grievance regardless of its merit, the settlement machinery provided by the contract would be substantially undermined, thus destroying the employer’s confidence in the union’s authority and returning the individual grievant to the vagaries of independent and unsystematic negotiation. Moreover, under such a rule, a significantly greater number of grievances would proceed to arbitration. This would greatly increase the cost of the grievance machinery and could so overburden the arbitration process as to prevent it from functioning successfully.”
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.