Alvarez v. IBP, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
339 F.3d 894 · 2003
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 22 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez (2005), Allen v. Board of Public Education (2007)
45 federal appellate · 22 district · 9 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 254 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 259 · 29 U.S.C. § 260
Relies on Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Auer v. Robbins · Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery 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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In any action or proceeding based on any act or omission on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [enacted May 14, 1947], no employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of the failure of the employer to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, or the Bacon-Davis Act, if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or interpretation, of the agency of the United States specified in subsection (b) of this section, or any administrative practice or enforcement policy of such agency with respect to the class of employers to which he belonged. Such a defense, if established, shall be a bar to the action or proceeding, notwithstanding that after such act or omission, such administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, practice, or enforcement policy is modified or rescinded or is determined by judicial authority to be invalid or of no legal effect. (b) The agency referred to in subsection (a) shall be— (1) in the case of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended — the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor [Secretary of Labor].”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform, and (2) activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to said principal activity or activities, which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal activity or activities.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the [FLSA] * * *.”
3 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.