Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.3d 640 - Shaw v. Prentice Hall Computer Publishing, Inc.

Shaw v. Prentice Hall Computer Publishing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.3d 640 · 1998

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently March 2019

8 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

160199820002010decided

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) · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Corning Glass Works v. Brennan · Batterton v. Francis

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.

  1. “clearly he is doing work directly related to management policies or general business operations.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “advising the management, planning, negotiating, representing the company, purchasing, promoting sales, and business research and control.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is not limited to persons who participate in the formulation of management policies or in the operation of the business as a whole,”
    2 later decisions 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.