Third Circuit· 6/27/1980
Glus v. G. C. Murphy Co.
Citations
- 629 F.2d 248
- 23 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 86
- 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16194
- 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,062
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that the union and the employer “do not share the commonality of interests and notice” necessary for the exception
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gibbons, Higginbotham, Sloviter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co.Third Circuit· 1985-11-13· cited 237×
- Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130Seventh Circuit· 1981-08-11· cited 148×
- United States v. City of PhiladelphiaThird Circuit· 1980-12-29· cited 143×
- In Re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan And Irap LitigationSecond Circuit· 1992-03-18· cited 118×
- KOCIAN, Charlotte T. v. GETTY REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY Appeal of Charlotte KOCIANThird Circuit· 1983-06-15· cited 112×
- McInerney v. Moyer Lumber and Hardware, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2002-12-31· cited 109×
- Unnamed caseSeventh Circuit· 1981-10-07· cited 92×
- Poleto v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Third Circuit· 1987-08-19· cited 79×
- Dortz v. City of New YorkS.D. New York· 1995-10-05· cited 70×
- Bishop v. Okidata, Inc.D. New Jersey· 1994-10-03· cited 40×
- Miller v. Apartments And Homes Of New Jersey, Inc.Third Circuit· 1981-04-22· cited 38×
- Ford-Greene v. NHS, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2015-05-20· cited 38×
- Goyette v. DCA Advertising Inc.S.D. New York· 1993-08-06· cited 37×
- Sandom v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc.D. New Jersey· 1990-12-20· cited 34×
- Borecki v. Eastern International Management Corp.D. New Jersey· 1988-08-02· cited 33×
- Levine v. Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityThird Circuit· 1981-04-16· cited 33×
- Gerald Schafer v. Board Of Public Education Of The School District Of Pittsburgh, Pa.Third Circuit· 1990-05-17· cited 28×
- Jeter v. BoswellN.D. West Virginia· 1983-01-07· cited 24×
- Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc.E.D. Pennsylvania· 2014-02-25· cited 24×
- Mathis v. United Homes, LLCE.D. New York· 2009-04-20· cited 23×
Cites
62 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 18,491×
- Cort v. AshSupreme Court· 1975-06-17· cited 3,337×
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court· 1975-06-25· cited 3,317×
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.Supreme Court· 1974-02-19· cited 3,057×
- Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala.Supreme Court· 1957-06-03· cited 2,816×
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court· 1979-05-14· cited 2,763×
- Touche Ross & Co. v. RedingtonSupreme Court· 1979-06-18· cited 1,881×
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. LewisSupreme Court· 1979-11-13· cited 1,476×
- J. I. Case Co. v. BorakSupreme Court· 1964-06-08· cited 1,399×
- Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.Supreme Court· 1970-06-15· cited 1,104×
- Clearfield Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1943-03-15· cited 1,075×
- Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court· 1959-02-24· cited 1,014×
- Banco Nacional De Cuba v. SabbatinoSupreme Court· 1964-03-23· cited 984×
- Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the PressSupreme Court· 1980-03-03· cited 892×
- United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.Supreme Court· 1975-05-19· cited 702×
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. RigsbySupreme Court· 1916-04-17· cited 633×
- Unnamed caseThird Circuit· 1975-02-25· cited 621×
- Illinois v. City of MilwaukeeSupreme Court· 1972-04-24· cited 610×
- United States v. Standard Oil Co. Of CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1947-10-13· cited 507×
- Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court· 1979-06-27· cited 424×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.