Walling v. US’s Empirical Analysis
330 U.S. 148 · 1947
Citation profile
286 federal appellate · 70 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 607 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb (1947), Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor (1985)
286 federal appellate · 70 district · 27 state decisions
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 Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 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 607 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to require its application to many persons and working relationships which, prior to this Act, were not deemed to fall within an employer-employee category.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“receive[d] no 'immediate advantage' from any work done by the trainees.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“His activities do not displace any of the regular employees, who do most of the work themselves, and must stand immediately by to supervise whatever the trainees do. The applicant’s work does not expedite the company business, but may, and sometimes does, actually impede and retard it. If these trainees complete their course of instruction satisfactorily and are certified as competent, their names are included in a list from which the company can draw when their services are needed. Unless they complete the training and are certified as competent, they are not placed on the list.”
4 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.