Atteberry v. Ritchie’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2009
8 district · 8 state decisions
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. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. · 36 Cal. 3d 403 - Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera · 96 Wash. 2d 893 - Weeks v. Chief of Washington State Patrol
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The negotiated agreements in this case clearly indicate the intent of the parties that compensation was only to be paid for mealtime when the officer was called upon to perform law enforcement duties during a meal period. The restrictions are not so onerous or confining that compliance with them constituted working by the deputies. The mere fact of being available to respond to a call by a superior officer or to assist a citizen in distress does not constitute work during the meal period. The stipulation of facts contained in the record indicates individual deputies, during meal periods, were able to keep medical and dental appointments, obtain haircuts, attend college classes, make purchases, engage in various sporting activities, and throw darts with the sheriff. We hold that unless called upon to actually perform law enforcement duties as contemplated by the MOU [collective bargaining agreement], the existence of the restrictions on the deputies’ mealtime activities do not, per se, result in work by the appellees.”
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.