Walling v. Yeakley’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.2d 830 · 1944
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Prakash v. American University (1984), Albert S. Craig v. Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation, Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Albert S. Craig (1959)
25 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. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 215
Relies on Gray v. Powell · Currin v. Wallace · Federal Security Adm'r v. Quaker Oats Co · 47 F. Supp. 635 - Henderson v. Kimmel · Ralph Knight, Inc. v. Mantel
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Professional. The term `employee employed in a bona fide * * * professional * * * capacity' in section 13(a) (1) of the act shall mean any employee:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 541.2 — Administrative. “The term ‘employee employed in a bona fide * * * administrative * * * capacity’ in section 13 (a) (1) of the act shall mean any employee— “(A) who is compensated for his services on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $200 per month (exclusive ■ of board, lodging, or other facilities), and “(B) (1) who regularly and directly assists an employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity (as such terms are defined in these regulations), where such assistance is nonmanual in nature and requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment; or “(2) who performs under only general supervision, responsible nonmanual office or field work, directly related to management policies or general business operations, along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience, or knowledge, and which requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment ; or “(3) whose work involves the execution under only general supervision of special nonmanual assignments and tasks directly related to management policies or general business operations involving the exercise of discretion and independent judgment; or “(4) who is engaged -in transporting goods or passengers for hire and who performs, under only general supervision, responsible outside work of a specialized or technical nature requiring special training, experience, or knowledge, and whose duties require the exercise of discretion and independen”
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.