Wirtz v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis
400 F.2d 665 · 1968
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1995
11 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 217 · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 255
Relies on Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · Mitchell v. Pidcock · Fleming v. Warshawsky & 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since this is not a new cause of action but a further step in the original proceeding herein to enforce an equitable remedy for civil contempt, growing out of defendant’s noncompliance with the Court’s original decree, the employees herein are entitled to be compensated for the periods set out in the petition, irrespective of any limitations fixed by the [section 255],”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Provided, That no court shall have jurisdiction, in any action brought by the Administrator to restrain such violations, to order the payment to employees of unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation or an additional equal amount as liquidated damages in such action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, here, in respect of the restitution of back wages, the proceeding is for the benefit of the employees in an action brought by an official acting in behalf of the United States and the employees. Admittedly the statute of limitations would apply to any action brought by the employees. What greater right does the party suing have than the party for whose benefit the suit is brought? He must be limited in his recovery to that which the holder of the beneficial interest is entitled to.”
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.