VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. v. SYSTEM FEDERATION NO. 40, RAILWAY EMPLOYEES DEPARTMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Et Al.

1937-03-29 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

6What it rests on

7Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19371 judgments19381 judgments19391 judgments19421 judgments19432 judgments19441 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1937–1944

first 1937 · last 1944 · busiest 1943 (2 judgments)

1944-02-28STARK ET AL. v. WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1943-11-22SWITCHMEN’S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA Et Al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1943-02-08ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK STATE, Inc., v. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior, Et Al.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1942-04-06Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications CommissionSupreme Court of the United States 1939-05-15UNITED STATES Et Al. v. MORGAN Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1938-12-05SHIELDS Et Al. v. UTAH IDAHO CENTRAL RAILROAD CO.Supreme Court of the United States 1937-04-12National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1937-04-12National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of the United States 1930-05-26TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY Et Al. v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILWAY & STEAMSHIP CLERKS Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1925-03-02Work, Secretary of the Interior v. United States Ex Rel. RivesSupreme Court of the United States 1918-04-29United States Ex Rel. Louisville Cement Company v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States 1915-01-25Coppage v. State of KansasSupreme Court of the United States 1912-04-29Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States of America Ex Rel. Humboldt Steamship CompanySupreme Court of the United States

46 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.