Bell v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In support of their contention appellants argue that Government-owned goods shipped by the Government across state lines is an administrative act of the sovereign and is not interstate commerce, and that the word ‘commerce’ as used in the Fair Labor Standards Act is limited to ‘commercial or business commerce.’ “On the first point raised it will be enough to say that cost-plus-fixed-fee contractors with the Government engaged in war production, are not agents of the Government and do not share the Government’s sovereign immunities. [State of] Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 , 62 S.Ct. 43 , 86 L.Ed. 3 , 140 A.L.R. 615 ; Curry v. United States, 314 U.S. 14 , 62 S.Ct. 48 , 86 L.Ed. 9 . And it has been held that the production of goods for interstate transportation by or for the Government is production for commerce within the meaning of the Act. [Citing Umthun v. Day & Zimmerman [ 235 Iowa 293 ], 16 N.W.2d 258 ; Timberlake v. Day & Zimmerman [D.C.], 49 F.Supp. 28 ; Clyde v. Broderick [10 Cir.], 144 F.2d 348, 351 .] “As to the second point, we note that the Act is made applicable to any employee ‘who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.’ Section 7(a), 29 U.S.C.A. § 207 (a). By § 3(b) of the Act, commerce is defined as ‘trade, commerce, transportation * * * from any State to any place outside thereof.’ But nowhere in the Act is it suggested that Congress intended that transportation effected by the Government or of Government goods be treated di”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Powell v. United States Cartridge Co. · 75 F. Supp. 25 - Roland v. United Airlines, Inc.

2. ““The Constitution confers upon Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several States. U.S.Const. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. This power to regulate commerce is not confined to commercial or business transactions. From an early date such commerce bas been held to include the transportation of persons and property no less than the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420 , 423, 39 S.Ct. 143 , 63 L.Ed. 337 , and goods may move in commerce though they never enter the field of commercial competition. For example, the movement of people across State lines and the unrestricted ranging of cattle across the boundary between two States is commerce. The interstate transportation of whiskey for personal consumption, of a woman from one State to another for an immoral purpose without any element of commerce, of a kidnapped person or a stolen automobile — all constitute interstate commerce in the constitutional sense. These cases, we think, make it clear that interstate commerce is not limited to interstate trade.” (Footnote omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Archambault v. United States · United States v. Snow