Williams v. Epic Sec. Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), failed to pay Plaintiffs for the time they spent driving to and from certain worksites, which time they alleged was compensable. Following a bench trial, I generally found that, for those Plaintiffs who worked at sites which required that a radio motor patrol vehicle (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“), Article 6, § 190, et seq. Plaintiffs alleged that their employer, Defendant EPIC Security Corp. (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“), 29 U.S.C. § 201 , et seq. , and the New York Labor Law (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.