Pentland v. Dravo Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.2d 851 · 1945
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp. (1974), Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed (1962)
23 federal appellate · 11 district · 9 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. § 216
Relies on Culver v. Bell & Loffland, Inc. · Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Deckert · Famous Funnies, Inc. v. Famous Funn Family, Inc. · 41 F. Supp. 980 - Gordon v. Paducah Ice Mfg. Co. · Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Action to recover such liability may be maintained * * * by any one or more employees for * * * themselves and other employees similarly situated * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The other and stronger point becomes apparent when one looks at the statute and then goes back to Moore again. The rights under this Act are not enforcible alone in federal courts but in `any court of competent jurisdiction.' Spurious class actions are of modern development; in some states they have been refused when they involved tort claims. State practice varies widely. Congress, we take it, was giving rights here under a federal statute which are enforcible in any court in the land. To what extent the language used subordinates state practice we need not decide. It is quite apparent that Congress, in providing for suit under the Act in all courts, advisedly did not assume that practice in all those courts would be that under the new federal rules. Had it limited the Act to federal court enforcement, the language of § 16 might not have been necessary, assuming, of course, that judges in federal courts thoroughly understand the new federal rules and apply them correctly at all times. We think the meaning we give to the language carries out the purpose of the Act.”
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.