Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““ * * * Coverage under the Act does not ipso facto require the court to grant an injunction against future violations, even in the face of past violations. The trial court is empowered to mold each decree to the necessity of each cáse. Walling v. Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co., 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 308 ; Walling v. Shenandoah-Dives Mining Co., 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 395 . ‘His discretion is necessarily broad and a strong showing of abuse must be made to reverse it.’ United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633 , 73 S.Ct. 894, 898 , 97 L.Ed. 1303 . The purpose of an injunction in a case of this kind is to prevent future violations in the public interest, not to punish for past transgressions. Equity will not do a useless or vain thing, and in the absence of some likelihood or probability that the violations will recur, the court is fully justified in refraining from entering an empty decree. See United States v. W. T. Grant Co., supra.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wirtz v. Dunmire · Mitchell v. Blanchard

2. ““The material facts are that the ap-pellee entered into a contract with the City of Cheyenne, Wyoming, for the construction of a reservoir and chlorinator house, xohich, when completed would augment the city’s water system. In addition to the concrete reservoir and a chlorinator house, the contract called for the construction of a connecting pipe line from existing wells and reservoirs to the new reservoir and through the chlorinator house * * *. The new reservoir and chlorinator house were located about five and one-half miles from the city in a pasture, no portion of which had ever been connected or used as a part of the city’s water system * * *. “The city furnishes large quantities of water to employers engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce. And, we know that employees engaged in an occupation directly essential to the production of goods for commerce are themselves engaged in the production of goods for commerce. (Citing cases.) We also know that workmen engaged in repairing, replacing, enlarging or improving an existing interstate facility are covered by the Act as employees engaged in commerce * *. On the other hand, it is equally plain that employees engaged in the original construction of a project or facility not yet dedicated to the channels of commerce or to the production of goods for commerce are not within the coverage of the Act, even though the facility or project, when completed, will be in the channels of interstate commerce or uti”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mitchell v. S. A. Healy Co.