Mitchell v. Jaffe’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 883 · 1958
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 1997 · most notably Mitchell v. Pidcock (1962), Montalvo v. Tower Life Building (1970)
44 federal appellate · 1 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on United States v. Darby · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Powell v. United States Cartridge Co. · Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer & Co.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Produced’ means produced, manufactured, mined,' handled, or in any other manner worked on in any State; and for the purposes of this chapter an employee shall be deemed to have been engaged in the production of goods if such employee was employed in producing, manufacturing, mining, handling, transporting, or in any other manner working on such goods, or in any closely related process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof, in any State.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in any closely related process or occupation directly essential to the production thereof,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There can be no doubt that the banks, government agencies and businesses housed in the buildings in question are engaged in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. * * * I find that the work of the defendant's employees had such a close and immediate connection with the production of goods for commerce as to be an essential part of it and that the employees were, therefore, within the scope of the Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shultz v. Parke
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.