Hodgson v. Humphries’s Empirical Analysis
454 F.2d 1279 · 1972
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2015 · most notably Smith v. Ford Motor Co. (1980), 135 S. Ct. 1625 - United States v. Kwai Fun Wong (2015)
54 federal appellate · 9 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · White v. Maryland · Durley v. Mayo
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“measures the dimensions of the lawsuit, both in the trial court and on appeal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the employer has kept proper and accurate records the employee may easily discharge his burden by securing the production of those records. But where the employer’s records are inaccurate or inadequate and the employee cannot offer convincing substitutes a more difficult problem arises. The solution, however, is not to penalize the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work. Such a result would place a premium on the employer’s failure to keep proper records in conformity with his statutory duty; it would allow the employer to keep the benefits of an employee’s labors without paying due compensation as contemplated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In such a situation we hold that an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with the evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence, (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think it clear that [the limitation provisions of the Portal-to-Portal Act] was intended as a limitation on the remedy available, not on the right to bring the action, and must be pleaded as an affirmative defense in accordance with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c) ...”
2 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.