Railway Labor Executives Ass'n v. Chesapeake Western Railway’s Empirical Analysis
915 F.2d 116 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Oakville Development Corporation 10-12 v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1993), Northwest Airlines Corporation v. Association of Flight Attendants (2007)
14 federal appellate ·
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 45 U.S.C. § 151 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 153 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 156 (Railway Labor Act) · 45 U.S.C. § 160 (Railway Labor Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 10901
Relies on Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad · Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. · Marino v. Ortiz · Charter Co. v. Certified Class in the Charter Securities Litigation · Begier v. Internal Revenue Service
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n appeal of the denial of an injunction to prohibit an act is rendered moot by the happening of the act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“.... if an employer asserts a claim that the parties’ agreement gives the employer the discretion to make a particular change in working, conditions without prior negotiation, and if that claim is arguably justified by the terms of the parties’ agreement (i.e., the claim is neither obviously insubstantial or frivolous, nor made in bad faith), the employer may make the change and the courts must defer to the arbitral jurisdiction of the Board.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] district court need not, indeed should not, assess the relative merits of the parties’ competing interpretations of the contract in order to find the dispute “minor.” If the railroad’s assertion that the collective bargaining agreement controls the dispute rises above the “frivolous or obviously insubstantial,” then the court must dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
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.