Phillips v. Walling US’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 490 · 1945
Citation profile
587 federal appellate · 133 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,371 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977), Dalehite v. United States (1953)
587 federal appellate · 133 district · 117 state decisions — followed in 24 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
reviewedA. H. Phillips, Inc. v. Walling (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Louis Liggett Co v. Lee · Walling v. American Stores Co. · Allesandro v. C. F. Smith Co.
Cited together with Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. · Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co. · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling
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 1,371 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any exemption from [the FLSA] must therefore be narrowly construed, giving due regard to the plain meaning of statutory language and the intent of Congress. To extend an exemption to other than those plainly and unmistakably within its terms and spirit is to abuse the interpretative process and to frustrate the announced will of the people.”
57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“engaged in any retail or service establishment”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““22. The term ‘service establishment’ as used in section 13(a) (2) may be considered to include generally that large miscellaneous assortment of business enterprises which are similar in character to retail establishments, but which may not be accurately classified as such. Such an interpretation is suggested by the manner in which Section 13(a) (2) is drafted. Service and retail establishments are considered in the same sentence and the same criterion of intrastate commerce is made applicable to both. “23. Many of the characteristics outlined above with respect to retail establishments are helpful in determining whether a given establishment is a service establishment within the meaning of section 13(a) (2). Service establishments are usually local in character, are usually open to the general consuming public and usually render a service to private individuals for direct consumption. The service is usually purchased in small quantities for private use rather than for industrial and business purposes. Further, the service is usually rendered at a ‘retail’ price.””
2 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.