Schwind v. EW & Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1166 (§ 606 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 202 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Foman v. Davis · Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Ltd. Partnership
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No employer shall be deemed to have violated ... [ 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a) ] by employing any employee of a retail or service establishment for a work week in excess of ... [40 hours], if (1) the regular rate of pay of such employee is in excess of one and one-half times the minimum hourly ... [wage], and (2) more than half his compensation for a representative period (not less than one month) represents commissions on goods or services.”
4 later decisions 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.