Shultz v. Mack Farland & Sons Roofing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
413 F.2d 1296 · 1969
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Donovan v. Grim Hotel Co. (1984), Patel v. Wargo (1986)
34 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Linkletter v. Walker · Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates · Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer & Co. · Wirtz v. Jones · Sakrete of Northern California, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control) by any person or persons for a common business purpose . . . . For purposes of this subsection, the activities performed by any person or persons-(1) in connection with the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution, a school for mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children, a pre-school, elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education (regardless of whether or not such hospital, institution, or school is public or private or operated for profit or not for profit) . shall be deemed to be activities performed for a business purpose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(R)estraint (from withholding back minimum wages and overtime compensation) was meant to increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of the Act by depriving a violator of any gains accruing to him through his violation”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The purpose of the injunctive procedure is] . . . not to collect a debt owed by an employer to his employee but to correct a continuing offense against the public interest . but that enforced payment . is simply a part of a reasonable and effective means which Congress, after trial and error, found it necessary to adopt to bring about general compliance with § 15(a) (2). In the course of his remarks in presenting the bill for the 1961 amendment to the Act, President Kennedy, then Senator, said, with reference to the enforcement provision, “. . .it will serve as a source of protection to employers who pay a decent wage and who must compete with employers who pay a substandard wage.” U.S. Code Cong. & Ad[min].News, 87th Congress, First Session 1961, Yol. 2 at p. 1621. The effectiveness of this protection is a matter of cardinal importance to the vitality of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the fulfillment of its purposes . . . The order to pay withheld, but earned, remuneration is to redress a wrong being done to the public good.”
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.