Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.’s Empirical Analysis
328 U.S. 680 · 1946
Citation profile
997 federal appellate · 399 district · 272 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,461 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Indian Towing Company v. United States (1955), Universities Research Assn., Inc. v. Coutu (1981)
997 federal appellate · 399 district · 272 state decisions — followed in 34 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
reviewedMt. Clemens Pottery Co. v. Anderson (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Flowers
Cited together with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Steiner v. Mitchell · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Skidmore v. Swift & Co.
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 3,461 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.”
196 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the matter in issue concerns only a few seconds or minutes of work beyond the scheduled working hours, such trifles may be disregarded. Split-second absurdities are not justified by the actualities of working conditions or by the policy of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is only when an employee is required to give up a substantial measure of his time and effort that compensable working time is involved.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“includ[e] all time during which an employee is necessarily required to be on the employer's premises, on duty or at a prescribed workplace.”
12 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.