Eldridge v. Felec Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
920 F.2d 1434 · 1990
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Massachusetts · International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Hechler
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To defend the claim against it, Felec Services need only show that it was motivated to discharge Eldridge for reason other than to retaliate for the assertion of rights under the Alaska Workers’ Compensation Act. It is irrelevant whether the company’s reliance on the labor agreement was reasonable or whether its interpretation of the agreement was correct.”
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.