Schmidtke v. Conesa’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.2d 634 · 1944
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Keen (1946), Rachbach v. Cogswell (1976)
21 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Bowie v. Gonzalez · Cohen v. United States · Stratton v. Farmers Produce Co. · Walling v. Sun Pub. Co. · Carroll v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since the Act is in its nature remedial, its exemptions are to be strictly construed and one claiming their benefit must bring his ease within both their letter and spirit. From this and also according to ordinary principles of pleading it follows that a plaintiff, in order to state a cause of action under the Act, is not required to allege that its exemptions are inapplicable. Exemption is a matter which must be alleged as a special defense under Rule 8(c), ... and this the defendant did not even attempt to do. Thus the court below decided this case on an issue which not only had not been raised by the pleadings, but also on one as to which no evidence had been introduced and as to which the court had expressed indifference. This constitutes reversible error.”
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.