Fleming v. Warshawsky & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
123 F.2d 622 · 1941
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2013 · most notably Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize (1945), Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. (1960)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 202 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Swift & Co. v. United States · Amalgamated Utility Workers v. Consolidated Edison Co. · United States ex rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. Co. · Curry v. Curry
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We shall now consider defendants’ contention, adopted by the lower court, that the defendants, in the absence of fraud or coercion, had a right to take releases from their employees, or, to put the position another way, that the employees entitled to restitution had a right to waive the same so as to protect the defendants and relieve them from the obligation imposed by the Act and judgment. There is some dispute as to the precise manner in which the so-called releases were obtained by the defendants. The court found that they were obtained voluntarily and without coercion. In our view of the matter, the manner in which they were obtained is immaterial, and there is no occasion to relate the facts connected therewith. “In Section 2 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 202 , Congress set forth its declaration of policy. The objectives aimed at were the elimination of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for the health, efficiency and general well-being of employees, and the eradication of the burdens on commerce caused by such sub-standard labor conditions. Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, 6 Cir., 121 F.2d 285 . Defendants concede that an agreement, in advance of employment, to accept less than permitted by law would render nugatory the objectives of the Act. We think precisely the same result would follow if the employer, by agreement with its employees, be permitted to pay less than the Act prescribes. Waivers in advance of .empl”
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.