Chambers Construction Company, a Corporation, and L. H. Chambers v. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
233 F.2d 717 · 1956
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates (1959), Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co. (1960)
39 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on Hecht Co. v. Bowles · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Walling US v. Helmerich & Payne
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Employer’ includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here the violation established is likely to resume, the court should grant an injunction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Company is engaged in the general contracting business, specializing in construction and reconstruction work upon municipal water and sewer systems * * *. [T]he company contracted with the City * * * for the construction of a segment of the city’s water supply main crossing the Big Blue River. This new segment (a 16-inch pipe 221 feet long) was intended to be a replacement for a similar segment which, for reasons of safety and security, had to be abandoned. The contract also involved certain piping changes and valve installations. Work on the proposed replacement took place while the old main was still being used, the plan being that the neto Une would be interspaced on completion with a minimum of interference with the city’s water supply intake. “The water carried by the supply main at the time in question was used by the City * * * and loas sold by the city to its customer water users, some of which were railroads engaged regularly and continuously in interstate commerce. Other users included industrial firms using the water in various ways incident to manufacture of their products, lohich products were distributed and sold in interstate commerce." At pages 719-720. “The trial court, following the so-called ‘new construction rule,’ stated: ‘* * that the construction of an entirely new facility, * * * a highway, which after construction is utilized for interstate commerce is not within the reach of the Act.’ “But the court concluded: “ ‘But the improvements in those ca”
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.