Dumas v. King’s Empirical Analysis
157 F.2d 463 · 1946
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Brookside Theatre Corp. (1952), Boehm v. Kansas City Power & Light Co. (1989)
22 federal appellate · 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. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · Cleo Syrup Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co. · Super-Cold Southwest Co. v. McBride · Kincade v. Mikles
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n Dumas v. King, 157 F. 2d 463 [(8th Cir. 1946)], it was stated: “While trial courts and appellate courts equally are regarded as experts on the value of legal services ... a trial court ordinarily has a better opportunity for practically appraising the situation, and an appellate court will interfere only to correct a patent injustice, where the allowance is clearly excessive or insufficient...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the employee is required to remain on call in or about the place of business of the company, the time spent should be considered hours worked. If, on the other hand, the employee is merely required to leave word where he can be reached in the event of a call and is not tied down to any particular place, such time need not ordinarily be considered hours worked.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . was not bound to accept King’s general testimony, unsupported by extraneous evidence such as records, etc., or by other credible testimony, that throughout the period of his employment he had worked at least 72 hours overtime a week tt”
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.