Guess v. Montague’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.2d 500 · 1943
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize (1945), Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling (1946)
43 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 214 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Clark · United States ex rel. Johnson v. Morley Const. 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In Bracey v. Luray, 4 Cir., 138 F.2d 8 , this day decided, we hold that a retail establishment within the meaning of the exemption is one which sells in small quantities to the ultimate consumer. On the principle noscitur a sociis, the ‘service’ establishment contemplated by the exemption must be of the same sort as the ‘retail’ establishment therein referred to, i. e. it must be one ‘selling services to consumers’, and this is the clear intimation of the Supreme Court. A. B. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517 , 526, 62 S.Ct. 1116 , 1121, 86 L.Ed. 1638 . As suggested by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in Fleming v. Arsenal Building Corporation, 2 Cir., 125 F.2d 278 , 280, we think that the exemption ‘should be limited to those who serve consumers directly, like tailors, or garages, or laundries’. Other illustrations of service establishments within the meaning of the statute have been given as ‘barber shops,' beauty parlors, shoe-shining parlors, clothes pressing clubs, laundries, automobile repair shops, or the like’. Wood vi Central Sand & Gravel Co., D.C., 33 F. Supp. 40 , 47; Fleming v. A. B. Kirschbaum Co., 3 Cir., 124 F.2d 567 , 572.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is a fair inference from the evidence that ¡plaintiffs here worked on interstate as well as intrastate business; that the two classes of business were commingled in defendant’s operations; and that defendant did not attempt to distinguish between the two in the payment of wages. Under such circumstances, we think that plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing entitling them to the protection of the act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“nor would the work done in rebuilding and reconditioning secondhand machinery for sale by defendant fall within the exemption, which does not extend to manufacturing or processing goods for sale * * *.”
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.