Reed v. Murphey’s Empirical Analysis
168 F.2d 257 · 1948
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 1963 · most notably Lassiter v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. (1949), James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Empire Gas Engineering Company (1958)
20 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The 89 construction employees were shown to be engaged solely in local intra-state building activities throughout the term of their employment. It has been uniformly held that persons employed on such work are not ‘engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce’ within the meaning and coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Parham v. Austin Co., 5 Cir., 158 F.2d 566 ; Phillips v. Graham Aviation Co., 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443 ; Noonan v. Fruco Construction Co., 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 633 ; Soderberg v. S. Birch & Sons Construction Co., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 37 ; Nieves v. Standard Dredging Corp., 1 Cir., 152 F.2d 719 ; Scott v. Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 982 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendants, in the performance of these two contracts, maintained separate and distinct organizations. Employees working under the construction contract were designated ‘construction’ workers, and carried on the ‘construction’ payroll, while employees working under the maintenance and operation contract were known as ‘maintenance and operation’ or ‘M & O’ employees, and carried on the ‘M & O’ payroll, which was entirely separate and distinct from the ‘construction’ payroll. “The defendants and their employees commenced work under the construction contract the latter part of April, 1942. They built warehouses, buildings, barracks, mess halls, railroad spurs, a recreation hall, a laundry and other installa-tions appropriate for Navy encampments. In addition, they constructed a rifle range and an ammunition storage depot 25 miles north of Gulfport. Actual construction in the field was begun about May 15, 1942, and was completed April 6, 1943. Approximately 5,000 employees were engaged in construction work under this contract during the peak period. Construction materials for the project were obtained from both local and out-of-state sources. Approximately 40 per cent of the dollar value of purchase orders was issued to out-of-state vendors. “A number of plaintiffs employed under the construction contract worked as guards, timekeepers, material checkers, * * *. Some plaintiffs worked at several jobs in the course of their employment. The guards performed custodial duties at ”
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.