Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.2d 112 - Skidmore v. Swift & Co.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.2d 112 · 1943

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 1962
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1962

6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

100194319501960decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern · Super-Cold Southwest Co. v. McBride

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

  1. ““Plaintiffs were firemen or elevator operators or relief firemen, none of whom regularly worked more than the minimum hours per week, unless time spent at the fire hall subject to call in case of an alarm is held to be ‘working.’ “Plaintiffs orally agreed that in addition to their regular eight-hour duties they would remain in the fire hall or within hailing distance thereof, three and one-half to four nights each week so as to be available in the event of an alarm. On these nights they were not required to perform any tasks except to answer alarms, for which they received extra pay. . . . “The Act does not require payment of wages to an employee merely because he is away from home. Nor does the Act undertake to regulate or restrict reasonable and bona fide agreements whereby an employee agrees to be available if needed. ‘Working’ is not synonymous with ‘availability for work.’ “Plaintiffs, in their proof, have failed to segregate sleeping time from non-sleeping, pool, domino, and radio, playing time. Even if the plaintiffs had been entitled to recover for hours spent in boredom, or waiting for bedtime, or an alarm, the proof wholly fails to prove the actual hours spent either in sleeping, playing pool, dominoes, or radio, dressing, shaving, bathing, or in any of said enterprises, the burden of which was on the plaintiffs.””
    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.