47 F. Supp. 1004 - Fleming v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1978
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 41 (§ 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 217 · 45 U.S.C. § 228A
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · United States v. Swift & Co. · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · National Labor Relations Board v. Express Publishing Co. · Swift & Co. v. United States
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because Section 16 (b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act gives to the employees a right to recover their wages and because Section 17 does not expressly permit the recovery of wages in an action brought under Section 17, any incidental powers, which the court might have under that section are withdrawn, for when a statute: creates a right (or liability) and gives a special remedy for its enforcement, that remedy is the exclusive one. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to grant restitution in this action. * * * * * * “In view of the above conclusions the only relief to which defendants are now entitled is a vacation of the decree’s order to make restitution of the back wages to their employees, and to that extent there will be a vacation and modification. “It is so ordered * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walling v. Miller““So far as 60(b) is concerned, there was no motion before the trial court to relieve a party or his legal representative from a judgment taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Beck
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.