Steiner v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.2d 171 · 1954
Citation profile
23 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1993 · most notably Steiner v. Mitchell (1956), Mitchell v. King Packing Co. (1956)
23 federal appellate ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 252 · 29 U.S.C. § 254
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp. · Great Northern Ry Co v. United States · Harrison v. Northern Trust Co. · Sarlls v. United States
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the findings of the District Court are deprived of the degree of finality which would otherwise attach under Rule 52.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Sec. 2. Relief From Certain Existing Claims Under The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as Amended, * * *. “(a) No employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act (in any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [May 14, 1947]), on account of the failure of such employer to pay an employee minimum wages, or to pay an employee overtime compensation, for or on account of any activity of an employee engaged in prior to the date of the enactment of this Act, except an activity which was compensa ble by either— “(1) an express provision of a written or nonwritten contract in effect, at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer; or “(2) a custom or practice in effect, at the time of such activity, at the establishment or other place where such employee was employed, covering such activity, not inconsistent with a written or nonwritten contract, in effect at the time of such activity, between such employee, his agent, or collective-bargaining representative and his employer. [Italics supplied.]” 61 Stat. 85 , 29 U.S. C. § 252.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is undisputed that the manufacturing process in which appellants' employees are engaged requires the use of various chemicals and chemical compounds, including sulphuric acid, lead metal, lead oxide, lead sulphate and lead peroxide, which create conditions which are dangerous to the health of the workers. * * * 20 "The only question presented for determination is whether the activities of the employees of appellants in changing clothes and taking shower baths at the plant, on account of the hazardous conditions inherent in the nature of their work, are so closely related to the duties which they are employed to perform as to constitute an integral part thereof and should be classed as `principal' rather than `preliminary' and `postliminary' activities within the meaning of Section 4(a) (2) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947”
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.