Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 F.2d 359 - Mitchell v. Brown

Mitchell v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

224 F.2d 359 · 1955

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 1978
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1978 · most notably Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates (1959), Albert S. Craig v. Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation, Far West Engineering Company, Inc., a Corporation v. Albert S. Craig (1959)

21 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

170195519601970decided

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 · 29 U.S.C. § 217

Relies on Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · McLeod v. Threlkeld · Ex Parte Barber

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.

  1. “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce for a workweek longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of the hours above specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The difficulty has been in finding an acceptable standard for ascertaining whether an employee's activities bring him within the coverage of the Act. * * * In the final analysis, of course, each case must stand or fall on its own particular facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “whether the work is so directly and vitally related to the functioning of an instrumentality or facility of interstate commerce as to be, in practical effect, a part of it, rather than isolated local activity”
    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.