Bowie v. Gonzalez’s Empirical Analysis
117 F.2d 11 · 1941
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 16 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949), Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co. (1955)
64 federal appellate · 16 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 12 U.S.C. § 1141J (Agricultural Marketing Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Mulford v. Smith · Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Fleming v. Hawkeye Pearl Button 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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““3. Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 [ 29 U.S.C.A. § 206 ] applies to all of plaintiffs’ employees, except those exclusively engaged in planting, cultivating and harvesting sugar cane, to wit: “(a) All the employees engaged in the sugar mill operations of the plaintiffs or in any occupations or processes necessary thereto. “(b) All employees engaged in transporting raw centrifugal sugar and molasses from plaintiffs’ sugar mills and warehouses to points outside such sugar mills and warehouses, or in any occupations or processes necessary thereto. “(c) All employees of plaintiffs engaged in transporting sugar cane of independent growers thereof for processing at plaintiffs sugar mills, or in any occupations or processes necessary thereto. “(d) All employees of plaintiffs engaged in transporting plaintiffs’ sugar cane for processing at plaintiffs’ sugar mills, or in any occupations or processes necessary thereto. “(e) All employees engaged during the grinding season and during the dead season in the repair and maintenance of the milling and transportation facilities of the plaintiffs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gonzalez v. Bowie““The scheme of the statute is broad and comprehensive with the obvious purpose of including all employees in interstate. commerce except those specifically excepted. In the instant case, the appellants claim specific exemption from the wage provisions of the Act. Being a remedial statute, the appellants must bring themselves within both the letter and spirit of the exceptions since they are subject to a strict construction.” See also Schmidtke v. Conesa, 1 Cir., 141 F.2d 634 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The legislative history makes plain that this [“on a farm”] language was particularly included to make certain that independent contractors such as threshers of wheat, who travel around from farm to farm to assist farmers in what is recognized as a purely agricultural task ... should be included within the definition of agricultural employees.”
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.