Walling v. O'Grady’s Empirical Analysis
146 F.2d 422 · 1944
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1982
11 federal appellate · 1 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. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · Texas Co v. Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks · Calvin R. Morgan v. Riverside Mills Company, C. A. Folk, T. I. Ward · Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County · Walling v. Miller
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is probable that the employee could have brought an individual action for loss of wages but such an action would not furnish a remedy adequate for such cases. The amount involved ordinarily would be small and the expense of recovery disproportionate and it seems more in accord with the spirit of sound labor legislation to allow the Administrator to restore all the rights of an employee in a single action instead of requiring one action for an injunction and reinstatement by the Administrator and another by the employee for loss of ad interim wages. We can see little difference beween giving reparation to an employee for loss of wages as ancillary to injunctive relief against withholding employment and giving back pay where an injunction for reinstatement has been violated as the court did in Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. [& S. S.] Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 , 50 S.Ct. 427 , 74 L.Ed. 1034 . Cf. Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 313 U.S. 177, 188 , 61 S.Ct. 845 , 85 L.Ed. 1271 , 133 A.L.R. 1217 . In each case such reparation is necessary to restore the status quo interfered with by the unlawful conduct of the employer and in neither case is there a statutory mandate spelling out all the details of relief necessary for the purpose in hand. In Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Ry. [& S. S.] Clerks, supra, back pay was allowed as ¿n inherent power of a court of equity necessary in order to enforce an injunction. In the case at bar it would”
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.