Shultz v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 215
Relies on Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · United States v. Silk · Phillips v. Walling US · Maryland v. Wirtz · Bartels v. Birmingham
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, the mere fact that employees in conducting the business of the enterprise or establishment, are using machinery, equipment, work tools, and the like, which may have been moved in or produced for commerce, does not mean that they are handling, selling; or otherwise working on “goods” that have been moved in or produced for commerce within the meaning of section 3(s).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““an enterprise which has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person,””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that gross rentals from defendant's [building] management activities must be included in determining its `annual gross volume of sales made or business done.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shultz v. Falk
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.