White III v. National Steel Corporation White’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 474 · 1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Banca Cremi Sa v. Alex Brown & Sons Incorporated (1997), 199 W. Va. 119 - Cordial v. Ernst & Young (1996)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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. § 1292 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“existence of [actual] fraud is not deducible from facts and circumstances which would be equally consistent with honest intentions. In sum, a presumption always exists in favor of innocence and honesty in a given transaction and the burden is upon one who alleges fraud to prove it by clear and distinct evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The prospect that “individual contract terms might have different meanings under state and federal law would inevitably exert a disruptive influence upon both the negotiation and administration of collective agreements.” ... Thus although state courts continue to have concurrent jurisdiction ' over breach of contract claims brought under § 301 ..., they must apply federal law rather than state contract principles in interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and resolving the case.... The preemptive effect of § 301 is necessary “in order to ensure uniform interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements, and thus have to promote the peaceable, consistent resolution of labor-management disputes.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Suits for violation of a contract between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
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.