Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 U.S. 679 - Borden Co. v. Borella

Borden Co. v. Borella’s Empirical Analysis

325 U.S. 679 · 1945

Citation profile

287
cited by 287 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

147 federal appellate · 28 district · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 287 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003 · most notably Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb (1949), D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi (1946)

147 federal appellate · 28 district · 37 state decisions

8001945195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedBorella v. Borden Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)

Relies on Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · McLeod v. Threlkeld · Walton v. Southern Package Corp.

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 287 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “engaged in the production of goods for commerce”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““3(r) ‘Enterprise’ means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control) by any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one or more establishments or by one or more corporate or other organizational units including departments of an establishment operated through leasing arrangements, but shall not include the related activities performed for such enterprise by an independent contractor: * * * ” “3(s) ‘Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce’ means any of the following in the activities of which employees are so engaged, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person: # * # ^ # # (3) any establishment of any such enterprise, except establishments and enterprises referred to in other paragraphs of this subsection, which has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce if the annual gross volume of sales of such enterprise is not less than $1,000,000;””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Thus, where, as here, the work of employees (maintaining an office building) is essential or necessary to such executive, administrative or professional activities of a productive nature the employees fall within the purview of Section 7(a) even though those directly engaged in such activities are by express exemption precluded from sharing in its benefits.”
    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.