Otto D. Gray Etc. v. Swanney-Mcdonald, Inc., William Lawman v. Swanney-Mcdonald, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
436 F.2d 652 · 1971
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2015
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 Nelson v. County of Los Angeles · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz · James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Sherry Corine Corporation · Weiss v. United States · Southern California Freight Lines v. McKeown
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.
“"The provision of towing and road services for the national highway system is essential to the free flow of traffic on that system. The fact that such services are a small part of appellee's business renders them no less important to interstate commerce. Even if appellee's contribution to interstate commerce was, by itself, quite small, we cannot ignore the cumulative effect that the many small companies in appellee's position have upon commerce between the states. By regularly servicing vehicles on the Interstate and U.S. Highways, appellee has become part of an industry the cumulative effect of which upon interstate commerce is substantial. . . . The fact that any given, or every given, company's contacts with interstate commerce are extremely small is irrelevant."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““During the years in question, appellee towed cars for members of the National Auto Club and charged the Club directly. The Club did not bill its members directly for that charge, but absorbed it as part of its overhead. * * * Appellee seizes upon this business practice to argue that these transactions are not sale of services for resale. * * * (U)nless appellee can establish . . . that these items constituted 25 percent or less of the dollar volume of his business, it is entitled to no exemption from coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brennan v. Parnham
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.