Walling US v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co’s Empirical Analysis
325 U.S. 419 · 1945
Citation profile
249 federal appellate · 72 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 664 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron (1948), Walling US v. Harnischfeger Corporation (1945)
249 federal appellate · 72 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 12 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
reviewedWalling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Walling US v. Helmerich & Payne · Walling v. A. H. Belo Corp. · United States v. Rosenwasser
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 664 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the hourly rate actually paid the employee for the normal, non-overtime workweek for which he is employed.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Once the parties have decided upon the amount of wages and the mode of payment the determination of the regular rate becomes a matter of mathematical computation, the result of which is unaffected by any designation of a contrary `regular rate' in the wage contracts.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First. The District Court found that even though the former piece rate agreements be considered unlawful the respondent had no apparent intention of resuming their use. It also found no willful intention on the part of the respondent to violate the Act and no evidence of any intention of future violations. It therefore felt that there was no necessity for an injunction. While ‘voluntary discontinuance of an alleged illegal activity does not operate to remove a case from the ambit of judicial power,’ Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, 323 U.S. 37, 43 , 65 S.Ct. 11, 14 , 89 L.Ed. 29 , it may justify a court’s refusal to enjoin future activity of this nature when it is combined with a bona fide intention to comply with the law and not to resume the wrongful acts. Cf. United States v. United States Steel Corp., 251 U.S. 417, 445 , 40 S.Ct. 293, 297 , 64 L.Ed. 343 . We cannot say, therefore, that the District Court abused its discretion in refusing to enjoin the abandoned method of wage payments.””
5 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.