Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 444 F.2d 609 - Hodgson v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.

Hodgson v. Arnheim & Neely, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

444 F.2d 609 · 1971

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

11019711980199020002010decided

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

Relationships

Relies on Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · United States v. Silk · Bartels v. Birmingham · Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc. · Mitchell v. Hertzke

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[I]t is clear that the maintenance workers are employees of the building owners. But we think that the Court of Appeals was unquestionably correct in holding that [the maintenance service] is also an ‘employer’ of the maintenance workers under § 3(d) of the Act, which defines ‘employer’ as ‘any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.’ 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). Section 3(e) defines ‘employee’ to include ‘any individual employed by an employer.’ 29 U.S.C. § 203 (e). In view of the expansiveness of the Act’s definition of ‘employer’ and the extent of [the maintenance service’s] managerial responsibilities at each of the buildings, which gave it substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of these employees, we hold that [the maintenance service] is, under the statutory definition, an ‘employer’ of the maintenance workers.””
    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.