Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 F.2d 400 - Stuart v. Kleck

Stuart v. Kleck’s Empirical Analysis

129 F.2d 400 · 1942

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
September 1990
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1990

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

90194219501960197019801990decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 901 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 302 (§ 2 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on North Whittier Heights Citrus Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. Turner Turpentine Co. · Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States · Bykle v. District Court of Watonwan County · Wayland v. Kleck

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The statute expressly excepts ‘agricultural labor,’ but does not expand the term in any detail. When the Congress, in providing for an exemption from the provisions of the Act, made use of the broad term ‘agricultural labor’, this expression, used by itself, must be given a meaning wide enough to include agricultural labor of any kind, as generally understood throughout the United States.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the recent case of Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 775 , it was held that services rendered by a company in cultivating crops of citrus fruits under contracts with crop owners were 'agricultural labor' rendered in connection with the cultivation of the soil, even though crop owners did not directly hire laborers but dealt with the company, which in turn put laborers to work, and the company was entitled to recover back social security taxes assessed with reference to wages paid to those laborers.”
    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.