Jackson v. Kimel’s Empirical Analysis
992 F.2d 1318 · 1993
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Laber v. Harvey (2006), Bryant v. Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc. (2002)
44 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. · Conway v. Statesman Mortgage Co.
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Accordingly, we hold that 301 forecloses Garley from successfully asserting an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on Sandia's disciplinary procedures. 61 The fact that Garley's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, to the extent that it is based on Sandia's actions leading to his dismissal, is preempted by 301, does not require us to arrive at the same conclusion with respect to Garley's second factual predicate for his claim -- Sandia's alleged retaliatory actions taken following the arbitrator's ruling. We are not required to find preemption in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of § 301 preemption, we will consider whether [the plaintiff] has proffered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on her state law claims before addressing whether the claims are preempted. This approach is consistent with Childers v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co., 881 F.2d 1259, 1263 (4th Cir.1989), where we specifically held that "[t]he § 301 preemption inquiry is predicated on the existence of a colorable state cause of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lee v. Pfeifer“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we can affirm on any legal ground supported by the record and are not limited to the grounds relied on by the district court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Laber v. Harvey
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.