Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.2d 653 - Kay v. General Cable Corp.

Kay v. General Cable Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

144 F.2d 653 · 1944

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
4
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Loeb v. Kivo (1948), United States ex rel. Stanley v. Wimbish (1946)

24 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions

46019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““Accepting the defendant’s contention that there would be some loss of efficiency and possibly some additional expense involved, more than that is needed to justify refusal to reinstate a person within the protection of the Act. In most cases it is possible to give some reason for the refusal. ‘Unreasonable’ means more than inconvenience or undesirable. The defendant’s argument upon this point, if carried to its necessary conclusion, would defeat the main purpose of the Act and limit its operation to .merely capricious or arbitrary refusals. Men and women returning from military service find themselves, in countless cases, in competition for jobs with persons who have been filling them in their absence. Handicapped, as they are bound to be by prolonged absence, such competition is not part of a fair and just system, and the intention was to eliminate it as far as reason- ably possible. The Act intends that the employee should be restored to his position even though he has been temporarily replaced by a substitute who has been able, either by greater efficiency or a more acceptable personality, to make it desirable for the employer to make the change a permanent one.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(a) Any person inducted into the land or naval forces under this Act for training and service, who * * * satisfactorily completes his period of training and service * * * shall be entitled to a certificate to that effect upon the completion of such period of training and service * * *. “(b) In the case of any such person who, in order to perform such training and service, has left or leaves a position, other than a temporary position, in the employ of any employer and who (1) receives such certificate, (2) is still qualified to perform the duties of such position, and (3) makes application for reemployment within ninety days after he is relieved from such training and service. * * * “(B) If such position was in the employ of a private employer, such employer shall restore such person to such position or to a position, of like seniority, status, and pay unless the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so * *”
    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.