Mitchell v. King Packing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
216 F.2d 618 · 1954
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Central Missouri Tel. Co. v. Conwell · Francis v. United States · Glenn L. Martin Nebraska Co. v. Culkin · F. W. Stock & Sons, Inc. v. Thompson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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“In our view the terms `preliminary' or `postliminary' cannot be interpreted so as to exclude all activity `indispensable to the performance of productive work.' To do so would deny effect to the intended meaning of the Portal-to-Portal Act. All of the activities designated as `preliminary' by the Supreme Court in the Mt. Clemens case [Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 , 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515] can be considered indispensable. See McComb v. C. A. Swanson & Sons, D.C.D.Neb., 1948, 77 F.Supp. 716, 733.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and 10 "(2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities.”
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.