Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
223 federal appellate · 8 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 328 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Holly Farms Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board (1996), Bayside Enterprises, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1977)
223 federal appellate · 8 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
reviewedWaialua Agricultural Co. v. Maneja (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 7 U.S.C. § 1131
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Wickard v. Filburn · United States v. Butler · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Walling v. Jacksonville Paper 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 328 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)here is no reason to construe the FLSA so as to discourage modernization in performing this same function.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“From the very beginning of the legislative consideration of the Act, a comprehensive exemption of agricultural labor was a primary consideration of the Congress. Nevertheless, before its final language developed, the agricultural exemption ran the gamut of extensive debates and amendments, each of the latter invariably broadening its scope. Exempting `any person employed in agriculture,' its first comprehensive definition declared `farming in all its branches' to be exempt, including `any practices ordinarily performed by a farmer as an incident to such farming operations.' S. 2475, Calendar No. 905, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. 51. Although this language was described by those in charge of the bill in the Senate as `perhaps, the most comprehensive definition of agriculture which has been included in any one legislative proposal,' 81 Cong.Rec. 7648, its coverage was broadened until it became coterminous with the sum of those activities necessary in the cultivation of crops, their harvesting, and their `preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market.'”
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.