Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.2d 8 - Bracey v. Luray

Bracey v. Luray’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.2d 8 · 1943

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2014 · most notably Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling (1946), D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi (1946)

17 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

27019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216

Relies on United States v. Darby · Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall · Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co. · Walling v. American Stores Co. · Enterprise Box Co. v. Fleming

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

  1. ““The exemption was not contained in the bill as originally introduced into Congress. S. 2475, H.R. 7200, 75th Cong. 1st Sess. May 24, 1937. It was added by an amendment, the purpose of which was to make clear that the act would have no application to ‘retail dry goods, retail butchering, grocers, retail clothing stores, department stores’, located near and making occasional sales across state lines. 83 Cong.Rec. 7437-7438. Walling v. American Stores Co., 3 Cir., 133 F.2d 840 , 843.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is of no significance that all of the transactions to which the em ployer is a party occur wholly intrastate, where he expects that the goods produced will move in interstate commerce. It has been so held where he merely sells goods intrastate to one who he knows will sell them in interstate commerce.””
    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.