Fred Wolferman, Inc. v. Gustafson’s Empirical Analysis
169 F.2d 759 · 1948
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. (1960), Rural Electrification Administration v. Northern States Power Co. (1967)
25 federal appellate · 4 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 258 · 29 U.S.C. § 260
Relies on United States v. Silk · Phillips v. Walling US · Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling · Guess v. Montague · Walling v. American Stores 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * in serving as a production agency for the employer’s other stores, the candy kitchen was in any event more than simply a component in the operation of the retail establishment in which it was located. And within the purview of the Act, establishment componency could hardly be claimed in the other stores, with which the candy kitchen lacked physical and operational integration. Each of these aspects would alone be sufficient to make the exemption of section 13(a)(2) inapplicable to its activities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial court also clearly erred in its view that the five stores and the warehouses could be regarded as constituting together one retail establishment for purposes of the exemption of section 13(a) (2) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a) (2). The term `retail establishment,' as used in that section, means `a distinct physical place of business', and each store of a chain store system therefore must be viewed as a separate establishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the advice and opinion of an attorney as to the applicability of the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act to the business of an employer ... is not in and of itself sufficient to establish “good faith” of the employer under Section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.”
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.