195 Or. App. 31 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207
Relies on Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries · Public Market Co. v. City of Portland · Jones v. General Motors Corp. · 37 Cal. App. 2d 269 - Davis v. Morris
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[W]e have held that, if an employer has actual knowledge that it has an obligation to pay overtime or if such knowledge reasonably can be imputed to the employer, a good faith belief that it has an excuse for not paying overtime will not allow the employer to escape imposition of a penalty under ORS 652.150(1). In Schulstad * * * this court considered the tension between [ Johnston ] and Sabin , on the one hand, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Lee and Braddock [v. Capfer, 284 Or. 237 , 586 P.2d 340 (1978)] * * *, on the other. In Lee and Braddock, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief by an employer that it did not owe an employee wages could excuse payment of a penalty. As noted above, in [ Johnston ], the court concluded that, despite an apparent good faith belief by the employer that it did not owe the full amount of wages claimed by its employee under the statute, the employer knew that it owed wages to its employee and failed to pay them. The court held that the employer's failure to pay the wages was willful and subjected the employer to a penalty under the statute. In Sabin , the Supreme Court held that the defendant willfully withheld wages from the plaintiff employee despite a showing of good faith. In Schulstad, we concluded that [ Johnston ] and Sabin were controlling. We explained that, as found by the trial court, the defendant employer in Schulstad knew that it owed its employee wages at the time that the employee left his employment. We held tha”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“level of awareness of its obligation to pay”
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.