Lorillard v. Pons’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1,397 federal appellate · 347 district · 172 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3,333 later decisions (187 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Pierce v. Underwood (1988), Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc. (1993)
1,397 federal appellate · 347 district · 172 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedPons v. Lorillard (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 217 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 260 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Crowell v. Benson · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Curtis v. Loether
Cited together with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 3,333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change.”
114 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime com pensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. An action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought. 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 right provided by this subsection to bring an action by or on behalf of any employee, and the right of any employee to become a pa”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“elimination of discrimination from the workplace,”
34 later decisions 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.