Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F. Supp. 279 - Thompson v. Daugherty

40 F. Supp. 279 - Thompson v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
January 1971
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 1971 · most notably Calaf v. Gonzalez (1942), Wright v. Carrigg (1960)

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

1201941195019601970decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 29 U.S.C. § 151 (§ 1 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 216

Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · United States v. Darby · Swift Company v. United States · Stafford v. Wallace

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

  1. ““The remaining question is whether the plaintiff is also entitled to double this amount as ‘liquidated damages’. Section 216(b) 29 U.S.C.A., provides: ‘Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this chapter shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. * * * The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.’ * * * “The intrinsic nature of the additional allowance would seem to make it a penalty rather than properly liquidated damages, but however that may be, the wording of the statute is clearly mandatory and leaves no discretion in the court as to its allowance. It has been uniformly so held in many district court cases.””
    1 later decision 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.