Walling v. Block’s Empirical Analysis
139 F.2d 268 · 1943
Citation profile
8 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 213
Relies on United States v. Darby · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · McLeod v. Threlkeld
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.
““The words of the statute are plain and unambiguous. Subsection (a) provides that sections 206 and 207 of the Act shall not apply with respect to ‘(1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or local retailing capacity, or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Administrator) ; or (2) any employee engaged in any retail or service establishment the greater part of whose selling or servicing is in intrastate commerce ;***.’ ” “It should be noted that the Administrator is not authorized to delimit by regulation any of the terms in this subsection, except those contained in subdivision 1. However, he has not, by Bulletin 6, attempted to define or delimit any word or term in that subdivision, but by the parenthetical clause in that subdivision he assumed authority to define and delimit the plain and unambiguous words of subdivision 2 by promulgating the order that the ‘unit store’ constitutes the retail or service establishment contemplated by the exemption; and rules that the word ‘establishment’ used in subsection (a) (2) refers to a physical place of business and is not synonymous with the words ‘business’ or ‘enterprise’ as applied to multi-unit companies. Hence, he concludes that the exemption here claimed does not apply to warehouses, central executive offices, or nonretail selling units which distribute to or serve the unit retail stores. * * * “We are unable to perceive the so”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It appears to us that the work of the employees in the present case is plainly incidental to the operation of a retail business. * * * Large retail department stores have central business offices and maintain warehouses or stock rooms where goods are received and from which they are distributed to the various departments. These may be in the same building as the selling departments or in a separate building. The mere physical separation of appellee’s warehouse from the stores themselves can hardly be regarded as a controlling factor. “ * * * All we decide is that the services involved were a mere incident to and an integral part of the operation of each store in the group. Since the selling of no store was substantially interstate, the employees in question are excluded from coverage by § 13(a) (2) of the Act.””
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.