McComb v. W. E. Wright Co.’s Empirical Analysis
168 F.2d 40 · 1948
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 1973 · most notably Montalvo v. Tower Life Building (1970), Crook v. Bryant (1959)
21 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Phillips v. Walling US · Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling · Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co.
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I find that the Defendants Tower Life Building and Tower Life Insurance Company were a single establishment enterprise on the dates in question and that such enterprise had two or more employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and had annual gross volume of sales of not less than $1,000,000. “I find that the Plaintiffs employed as maids and janitors by the Tower Life Building were covered by the 1961 Amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. “The Court is satisfied that the Act or omission giving rise to this action was in good faith and that the Defendants had reasonable grounds for believing that its act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended and therefore finds that no liquidated damages should be awarded Plaintiffs. “I find that the Statute of Limitations was tolled by the filing of the original complaint on November 7, 1967. “I find that the attorneys are entitled to maintain this suit on behalf of the Plaintiffs. “I conclude that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover such sums as they may be able to establish as owing to them as unpaid minimum wages and overtime payments, if any, due, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended and in force at the relevant times. “I conclude that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover liquidated damages against the Defendants.””
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.