Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 U.S. 427 - Walling US v. Harnischfeger Corporation

Walling US v. Harnischfeger Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

325 U.S. 427 · 1945

Citation profile

252
cited by 252 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 39 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 252 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. (1981), Walling US v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co (1945)

88 federal appellate · 39 district · 11 state decisions

1090194519501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. Harnischfeger Corp. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Walling US v. Helmerich & Payne · Walling US v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co · 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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Our attention here is focused upon a determination of the regular rate of compensation at which the incentive workers are employed. To discover that rate, as in the Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co. case, we look not to contract nomenclature but to the actual payments, exclusive of those paid for overtime, which the parties have agreed shall be paid during each workweek. * * * “(1) Those who receive hourly rates at least 20% higher than their guaranteed base rates clearly are paid a regular rate identical with the higher rate and the failure of respondent to pay them for overtime labor on the basis of such a rate is a plain violation of the terms and spirit of Section 7(a). No contract designation of the base rate as the ‘regular rate’ can negative the fact that these employees do in fact regularly receive the higher rate. To compute overtime compensation from the lower and unreceived rate is not only unrealistic but is destructive of the legislative intent. A full 50% increase in labor costs and a full 50% wage premium, which were meant to flow from the operation of Section 7(a), are impossible of achievement under such a computation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “automatically enter into the computation of the regular rate for purposes of [section 207(a) ] regardless of any contract provision to the contrary”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(i)f the correct overtime compensation cannot be determined until some time after the regular pay period . . .”
    1 later decision 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.