Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.2d 501 - Walling v. Benson

Walling v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

137 F.2d 501 · 1943

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2013

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

11019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 202 · 29 U.S.C. § 211

Relies on Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins · Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co. · Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. · Cudahy Packing Co. v. Holland

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

  1. ““ ■■ * * the principle applied by us in the Cudahy Packing Co. case is controlling here, * * *. The implication of that decision simply is, * * * that, in order to be entitled to a compliance order from the district court for the enforcement of an investigatory subpoena, the Administrator is only required to satisfy the court of the existence of reasonable ground for making the investigation, i. e. reasonable ground to believe that the industry is subject to the Act, and not to make proof of actual coverage under the Act, nor is the employer entitled to a trial and adjudication of the question of coverage on such an application.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t is plain that appellant is not entitled to an adjudication of actual coverage as a prerequisite to the enforcement of the subpoena, rather the orderly and efficient enforcement of the [FLSA] within the framework of the constitutional rights of the parties involved, require only that the District Court have “the assurance that it is not giving judicial sanction and force to unwarranted and arbitrary action, but that reasonable grounds exist for making the investigation.””
    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.