Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 697 · 1945
Citation profile
714 federal appellate · 242 district · 162 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,007 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Wilko v. Swan (1953), Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981)
714 federal appellate · 242 district · 162 state decisions — followed in 29 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Darby · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation
Cited together with Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. · D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
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 2,007 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The legislative history of the Fair Labor Standards Act shows an intent on the part of Congress to protect certain groups of the population from substandard wages and excessive hours which endangered the national health and well-being and the free flow of goods in interstate commerce. The statute was a recognition of the fact that due to the unequal bargaining power as between employer and employee, certain segments of the population required federal compulsory legislation to prevent private contracts on their part which endangered national health and efficiency and as a result the free movement of goods in interstate commerce. To accomplish this purpose standards of minimum wages and maximum hours were provided. Neither petitioner nor respondent suggests that the right to the basic statutory minimum wage could be waived by any employee subject to the Act. No one can doubt but that to allow waiver of statutory wages by agreement would nullify the purposes of the Act.”
55 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any employer who violates the [FLSA] shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation.”
17 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.