Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 F.2d 52 - Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co.

Davis v. Goodman Lumber Co.’s Empirical Analysis

133 F.2d 52 · 1943

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
October 2008
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2008 · most notably Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. (1960), Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co. (1946)

13 federal appellate · 2 district ·

1901943195019601970198019902000decided

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. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 213

Relies on United States v. Darby · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · NLRB v. Fain-Blatt · Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The complainant’s employees brought suit to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in divers amounts alleged to be due under the Act for services rendered to the corporation between January 1, 1939 and March 24, 1941 in the purchase and sale of lumber and in the production of rollers for mill machinery intended to be shipped in interstate commerce. During the years 1939 and 1940 the gross sales of lumber by the corporation were $264,529 and $345,999 respectively, of which by far the greater part were sales at retail within the State. But, in addition, the defendant corporation participated to a limited extent in the manufacture of rollers for cotton mills. The rollers consisted of metal shafts one and a half inches in diameter and three and a half to five feet long with wood glued on each side and metal pulley wheels at each end. The shafts were made by iron workers or foundries and sent to the Goodman Company so that the wooden attachments might be processed and glued to the shafts and then returned to the foundries where the wood was lathed and the pulley wheels attached. The Goodman Company performed less than ten per cent of the manufacturing process. The proceeds of this business done by the Goodman Company in 1940 and 1941 amounted approximately to $11,750 and $8,240 respectively, and of the rollers handled by the Goodman Company twenty-five per cent were sold and shipped by the foundries outside the State. The evidence indicates that two workmen employ”
    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.