McCloskey & Co. v. Eckart’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.2d 257 · 1947
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc. (1975), Mirabal v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1976)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Sohn v. Waterson · United States v. St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co. · Smith v. Porter · Hughes v. Daniel · Ross v. Fishstine
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All overtime earned and all application of the Act was moreover denied by the answer, putting the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and since no sufficient evidence was introduced no case was ever made for the judgment rendered. But on appeal, by a well-settled rule, we must judge ihe case by Ihe present law, and not by that existing al the time of the trial. Since the trial the so-called, Portal-to-Portal Act * * * approved May 14, 1947, has been passed. * '* * The default should be opened, and- the case tried under the principles we have pointed out, in so far as under the evidence produced they are applicable. The judgment is reversed and ihe cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In section 3, compromises of rights and waivers of damages under the [FLSA] are dealt with and so far from nullifying them as contrary to the policy of the law, as was held by some courts, such compromises and waivers are, to the extent therein provided, approved and given effect by the policy-making organ of the Government, to-wit, the Congress. As to those made subsequent to the Act, section 3(c) provides: “Any such compromise or waiver, in the absence of fraud or duress, shall, according to the terms thereof, be a complete satisfaction of such cause of action and a complete bar to any action based on such cause of action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any compromise or waiver heretofore so made or given.”
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.