International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
13 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently April 2025
13 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
Relies on W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers · F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co. · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Local No. 82, Furniture & Piano Moving, Furniture Store Drivers, Helpers, Warehousemen & Packers v. Crowley · Russell v. Farley
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“file an undertaking with adequate security in an amount to be fixed by the court sufficient to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs (together with a reasonable attorney’s fee) and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ample authority for the proposition that the provisions of Rule 65(c) are not mandatory and that a district court retains substantial discretion to dictate the terms of an injunction bond.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a controversy under the [RLA] can also be a labor dispute under the Norris-LaGuardia Act,” rather than equating the two concepts, as the defendants would have it. Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the second E. Airlines opinion actually undermines the defendants' argument. 11 . The defendants claim that DOT regulations will require Pan Am”
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.