Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 F.3d 399 - Uphoff v. Elegant Bath, Ltd.

Uphoff v. Elegant Bath, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

176 F.3d 399 · 1999

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
3
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney (2001), Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Valerie Washington (1999)

23 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

270199920002010decided

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

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney · McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority · Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]f the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ... the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'Although in the final analysis, we review a district court's decision on liquidated damages for abuse of discretion, that discretion must be exercised consistently with the strong presumption under the statute in favor of doubling.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the rate that lawyers of similar ability and experience in the community normally charge their paying clients for the type of work in question.”
    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.