Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 F.2d 530 - George P. Schultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Kip's Big Boy, Inc.

George P. Schultz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Kip's Big Boy, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

431 F.2d 530 · 1970

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
October 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2014

12 federal appellate · 2 district ·

15019701980199020002010decided

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 Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Phillips v. Walling US · McLeod v. Threlkeld · Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Ivey · Walling v. American Stores 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellee admits in its brief that ‘It is recognized by the appellee that the great bulk of all the case law dealing with exemptions and the applicability of the exemption to central offices, central warehouses or central processing facilities deny the application of the exemption * * * ’ This is the holding of this court in Mitchell v. Sunshine Department Stores, supra, [ 292 F.2d 645 ]. Appellee has not made a valid distinction between Kip’s and the employers in the cases decided by this and other courts. See Phillips, Inc. v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490, 494-496 , 65 S.Ct. 807 , 89 L.Ed. 1095 . The trial court erred in holding that the retail store exemption applied to this commissary and warehouse.” 7”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the only test is that 'goods amounting to $250,000 a year' must be purchased or received for resale and have moved across state lines at sometime in the flow of commerce to the retailer, 2 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin.News, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, p. 1645”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the legislation was designed to regulate enterprises dealing in articles acquired intrastate after travel in interstate commerce”
    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.