Tobin, Secretary of Labor v. Alma Mills’s Empirical Analysis
192 F.2d 133 · 1951
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably Fortin v. Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare (1982), Dunlop v. City Electric, Inc. (1976)
24 federal appellate · 5 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 United States v. Swift & Co. · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Ladner v. Siegel (No. 4) · Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Food Fair, Inc. · Grand Union Equipment Co. v. Lippner
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that an injunctive order may be modified or dissolved in the discretion of the court when conditions have so changed that it is no longer needed or as to render it inequitable.” Tobin v. Alma Mills, 192 F.2d 133 (4 Cir., 1951).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[I]t cannot be said that there was abuse of discretion in dissolving such an injunction when it appears that it has been in effect long enough to accomplish the purpose for which it was granted and that there is no longer any reason to apprehend violation of the statute by the person enjoined.” Id., at 136 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is little short of absurd to contend that this decision requires that the consent decrees that the various administrative agencies have been ■obtaining should be extended in perpetuo against people who have been obeying the law over long periods and show no intention of doing otherwise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.