Frank v. Wilson & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 712 · 1949
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Lindow v. United States (1984), Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc. (2011)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · 77 F. Supp. 716 - McComb v. C. A. Swanson & Sons · Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co. · Joshua Hendy Corp. v. Mills · 72 F. Supp. 366 - McIntyre v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Supreme Court tells us that activities are de minimis which involve only ‘insubstantial and insignificant’ periods of time. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., supra, 328 U.S. at page 693 , 66 S.Ct. at page 1195 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 . Also, ‘it is only when an employee is required to give up a substantial measure of his time and effort that compensable working time is involved.’ Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., supra, 328 U.S. at page 692 , 66 S.Ct. at page 1195 , 90 L.Ed. 1515 . The de minimis rule, the court says, is ‘justified by the actualities of working conditions * * * the realities of the industrial world,’ and ‘by the policy of the Fair Labor Standards Act.’ It is thus apparent that no rigid rule can be laid down with mathematical certainty as to when the de minimis rule applies. Each situation presented must be examined in the light of what is ‘substantial’ and ‘reasonable’ in view of all the factors present. Here, not more than five minutes a day is involved.' The checking in at the time clock, the receiving of instructions from supervisory personnel, the obtaining of tools from tool chests and cabinets, and the walking to the place plaintiffs were required to be are similar to the preliminary activities which were held governed by de minimis in the Mt. Clemens case. “We have concluded that the overtime activities here in question are clearly de minimis under the doctrine of Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., supra, and hence are not compensable. “Illustrati”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the matter in issue concerns only a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours, such trifles may be disregarded. Split-second absurdities are not justified by the actualities of working conditions or by the policy of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is only when an employee is required to give up a substantial measure of his time and effort that compensable working time is involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`employees who are required to work over 8 hours in any one day,'”
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.