Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.2d 325 · 1945
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Gulf King Shrimp Company v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (1969), Miller v. Bank of America (1979)
31 federal appellate · 7 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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · People Ex Rel. Price v. Sheffield Farms-Slawson-Decker Co. · Lenroot v. Interstate Bakeries Corp.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a condition of employment under which (1) any employee under the age of sixteen years is employed by an employer ... in any occupation, or (2) any employee between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years is employed by an employer in any occupation which the Secretary of Labor shall find and by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children between such ages or detrimental to their health or well being .... The Secretary of Labor shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years in occupations other than manufacturing and mining shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Secretary of Labor determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Act contains no suggestion that the mere declaration by corporate officers of a policy of obedience to the law, or the absence of a grant of authority by them to the hiring foremen to disobey it, leaves the court with no duty of enforcement. On the contrary, such corporations must be held strictly accountable for the child labor violations of subordinates. Their duty does not end with mere directive communication to such subordinates.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n employer’s knowledge is measured in accordance with his “duty to inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business.” ... With these principles in mind we need only inquire whether the circumstances of the present case were such that the employer either had knowledge that minors were illegally in his employ, or else had the opportunity through reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge.”
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.