Douglas v. Argo-Tech Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
113 F.3d 67 · 1997
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Haywood v. North American Van Lines, Inc. (1997), Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc. (2002)
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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 Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. · Moore v. Holbrook · United States v. Tincher
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) It is not possible to lay down specific rules that will indicate the precise point at which work becomes of substantial importance to the management or operation of a business. It should be clear that the cashier of a bank performs work at a responsible level and may therefore be said to be performing work directly related to management policies or general business operations. On the other hand, the bank teller does not. (2) An employee performing routine clerical duties obviously is not performing work of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business even though he may exercise some measure of discretion and judgment as to the manner in which he performs his clerical tasks.An employee operating very expensive equipment may cause serious loss to his employer by the improper performance of his duties. An inspector, such as, for example, an inspector for an insurance company, may cause loss to his employer by the failure to perform his job properly. But such employees, obviously, are not performing work of such substantial importance to the management or operation of the business that it can be said to be ‘directly related to management policies or general business operations’ as that phrase is used in § 541.2. (5) The test of “directly related to management policies or general business operations” is also met by many persons employed as advisory specialists and consultants of various kinds, credit managers, safety directors, claim agents and adjuste”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [The employee is] compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week * * *; (2) [The employee’s primary duties include] the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and (3) [The employee’s] primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.”
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.