Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.’s Empirical Analysis
315 U.S. 386 · 1942
Citation profile
156 federal appellate · 34 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 389 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb (1947), Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company v. United Transportation Union (1969)
156 federal appellate · 34 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 13 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
reviewedWilliams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Powers's Case · Pickett v. Union Terminal 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 389 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“pending ... negotiations, where no collective bargaining agreements are or have been in effect, the carrier”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Such a conclusion, however, does not foreclose a decision that in certain specific situations the so-called tips may not be in reality the employee’s compensation for his services and therefore wages. . . . “It, of course can make no practical difference whether the red caps first turn in their tips and then receive their minimum wage or are charged with the tips received up to the minimum wage per hour. . . . The employer was left free, in so far as the Act was concerned, to work out the compensation problem in his own way. Other courts are in accord with our view. [Citing authorities.]””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Action to recover such liability [against an employer by an employee or employees affected] may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for or in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action for and in behalf of all employees similarly situated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.