Local No United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America’s Empirical Analysis
920 F.2d 1047 · 1990
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 24 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Henley Drilling Co. v. McGee (1994), Desmond v. Varrasso (1994)
22 federal appellate · 24 district · 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 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 402 · 29 U.S.C. § 411 · 29 U.S.C. § 462 · 29 U.S.C. § 501 · 29 U.S.C. § 529 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Griffin v. Breckenridge · United States v. Zannino · Eisenstadt v. Baker
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Wjhatever the specific formulation of the test, the circuits are in agreement that the proper focus of judicial inquiry is on the reasonableness of the union’s interpretation of its constitution at the time of the decision, not on a post hoc evaluation of the reasonableness of the underlying action. In other words, the critical question, uniformly, is whether the stated reason for the action was facially sufficient under the instrument of governance, or put another way, “whether there was arguable authority for the officer’s act from the officer’s viewpoint at the time .... ” [quoting Stelling, 587 F.2d at 1389 n. 10] If this query is answered in the affirmative, further judicial scrutiny of the decision, absent bad faith, is foreclosed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is a well-established, soundly based policy of avoiding unnecessary judicial intrusion into the affairs of labor unions.”). . Keenan asserts that because the trusteeship charges were against the entire Local and many of the charges brought against him were also brought against other officers of the Local, he had no way of knowing which of his actions were in violation. As previously stated, the Court finds Keenan’s claims of ignorance unavailing. . In Hardeman , the Supreme Court stated that the right to a “full and fair hearing””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven in cases where elusive concepts such as motive or intent are at issue, summary judgment may be appropriate if the nonmoving party rests merely upon conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation”
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.