Armstrong Co. v. Walling’s Empirical Analysis
161 F.2d 515 · 1947
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2007 · most notably Dong Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, Inc. (2007), Fred Wolferman, Inc. v. Gustafson (1948)
25 federal appellate · 2 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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. · Phillips v. Walling US · Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling · Bowie v. Gonzalez · Calaf v. Gonzalez
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The commissary is integrated with, but physically distinct from, the stands in the station where the retail functions are carried on. It is a distinct place of business and is an establishment under the Act. It bears no closer relationship to the stands in the concourse than it does to the other stands in the various railroad stations inside and outside Massachusetts, and to the train service department [Citations omitted]. There are no sales there and no retail transactions of any kind. Its only business is supplying the stands throughout the system and the railroad train service. The business carried on there more closely resembles that of a warehouse or wholesale establishment than a retail store. [Citations omitted]. While the business in the commissary may not be of a wholesale nature it certainly is not of a retail nature and to bring it within the exemption of § 13(a) (2) the burden is upon the appellant to prove that its employees are within the letter and spirit of the exception.” 6”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the burden is upon the appellant to bring itself plainly and unmistakably within the terms and the spirit of the exemptions.”
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.