Walling v. Friend’s Empirical Analysis
156 F.2d 429 · 1946
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1970 · most notably NLRB v. Servette, Inc. (1964), Mitchell v. Pidcock (1962)
21 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 215
Relies on Riley Inv Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot · Borden Co. v. Borella · McGivern v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Interpretative Bulletin No. 13, Paragraph 17, issued July, 1939, provides: “ ‘In some cases, however, an employee may work 40 hours for company A and 15 additional hours during the same week on a different job for company B. In this case it would seem that if A and B are acting entirely independently of each other with respect to the enployment [sic] of the particular employee, both A and B, in ascertain ing their obligations under the act, would be privileged to disregard all work performed by the employee for the other company. If, on the other hand, the employment by A is not completely disassociated from the employment by B, the entire employment of the employee for both A and B should be considered as a whole for the purpose of the statute. Whether the employment by A and B are completely disassociated depends, of course, upon the facts in all cases involving more than one employment and at least in the following situations, an employer will be considered as acting in the interest of another employer in relation to an employee: If the employers make an arrangement for the interchange of employees or if one company controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, directly or indirectly, the other company.' ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wirtz v. Hebert““As can be readily seen this definition has two distinct branches. First, there is the primary meaning. Agriculture includes farming in all its branches. Certain specific practices such as cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, etc., are listed as being included in this primary meaning. Second, there is the broader meaning. Agriculture is defined to include things other than farming as so illustrated. It includes any practices, whether or not themselves farming practices, which are performed either by a farmer or on a farm, incidently to or in conjunction with ‘such’ farming operations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mitchell v. Hunt““There is here no proof, and indeed no contention, that Evans’ dual employment was intended to circumvent the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act or for any reason other than with the bona fide purpose of having a single employee serve the two employers in their common office as a matter of convenience to the parties. Evans performed entirely different services, though of a similar nature, for each employer. His services for one employer were of no benefit to the other. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wirtz v. Hebert
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.