Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator of the Wage & Hour Division of the Department of Labor’s Empirical Analysis
312 U.S. 126 · 1941
Citation profile
330 federal appellate · 105 district · 232 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,082 later decisions (109 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), Boddie v. Connecticut (1971)
330 federal appellate · 105 district · 232 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedOpp Cotton Mills, Inc., v. Administrator of Wage & Hour Division of Department of Labor (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 828 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 7 U.S.C. § 1281 (Agricultural Act of 1948) · 7 U.S.C. § 511 · 7 U.S.C. § 601
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · United States v. Darby · Diaz v. United States · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Morgan v. United States
Cited together with Yakus v. United States · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · United States v. Rock Royal Co-Op Noyes · Lichter v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan
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 1,082 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essentials of the legislative function are the determination of the legislative policy and its formulation as a rule of conduct. Those essentials are preserved when Congress specifies the basic conclusions of fact upon ascertainment of which, from relevant data by a designated administrative agency, it ordains that its statutory command is to be effective.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The demands of due process do not require a hearing, at the initial stage or at any particular point or at more than one point in an administrative proceeding so long as the requisite hearing is held before the final order becomes effective.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The argument of petitioners is not that the record contains no evidence supporting the findings but rather that this class of evidence must be ignored because not competent in a court of law. But it has long been settled that the technical rules for the exclusion of evidence applicable in jury trials do not apply to proceedings before federal administrative agencies in the absence of a statutory requirement that such rules are to be observed. [Cases cited.] We need not consider whether this class of evidence must be excluded from proceedings in court. “Further the documents in question were received in evidence without objection. And even in a court of law if evidence of this character is admitted without objection it is to be considered and must be accorded ‘its natural probative effect as if it were in law admissible.’ [Cases cited.] ””
3 later decisions 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.