Walling US v. General Industries Co’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

293 federal appellate · 45 district · 25 state decisions

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

1. ““The term ‘employee employed in a bona fide executive * * * capacity’ in Section 13 (a) (1) of the Act shall mean any employee “(a) whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and “(b) who customarily and regularly directs the work of other employees therein, and “(c) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring or firing and as to the advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight, and “(d) who customarily and regularly exercise discretionary powers, and “(e) who is compensated for his services on a salary basis at not less than $30 per week (exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities), and “(f) whose hours of work of the same nature as that performed by non-exempt employees do not exceed 20 per cent of the number of hours worked in a workweek by the non-exempt employees under his direction: Provided, that this subsection (f) shall not apply in the case of an employee who is in sole charge of an independent establishment or a physically separated branch establishment.” (Code of Federal Regulations, Cum. Supp., Title 29— Labor, Chapter V — Wage and Hour Division, Part 541.1; 5 Federal Regulations 4077).”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Allred v. Sasser · Spring v. Washington Glass Company

2. “The District Court, having made findings substantially as stated above, proceeded to make additional findings of the existence of each of the facts on which an executive status, as defined by the Regulations, is made to depend. We believe that the evidentiary facts afford an adequate basis for the inferences drawn by the Court in making such additional findings. At the least, we think that in drawing such inferences the Court was not clearly wrong, and conclude that the findings should therefore have been left undisturbed. The Circuit. Court of Appeals' rejection of those findings cannot rest on the conflicting testimony of petitioner's witnesses. The District Court heard the witnesses, and was the proper judge of their credibilty.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pool v. Commissioner · Pool v. Commissioner

3. “The District Court heard the witnesses, and was the proper judge of their credibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. One Cadillac Convertible Coupe F079329 1377-H · No. 16208