Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 F.2d 1334 - Brennan v. Dillion

Brennan v. Dillion’s Empirical Analysis

483 F.2d 1334 · 1973

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Russell v. Board of County Commissioners (1997), 465 F. Supp. 936 - Pedreyra v. Cornell Prescription Pharmacies, Inc. (1979)

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

21019731980199020002010decided

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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 212 · 29 U.S.C. § 215

Relies on Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Maryland v. Wirtz · Hall v. Cole · National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. George P. Shultz, Secretary, U. S. Department of Labor

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

  1. “"Goods” means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not include goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” means an enterprise which has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, including employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person, and which— (1) during the period February 1, 1967, through January 31, 1969, is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated) or is a gasoline service establishment whose annual gross volume of sales is not less than $250,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated), and beginning February 1, 1969, is an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $250,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated) ; (2) is engaged in laundering, cleaning, or repairing clothing or fabrics; (3) is engaged in the business of construction or reconstruction, or both; or (4) is engaged in the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution, a school for mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children, a preschool, elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education (regardless of whether or not such hospital, instit”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Section 203(j) says that an employee is engaged in the production of goods if he “was employed in producing, * * * handling * * * or in any other manner working on such goods.” The stipulation of the parties says that the products and merchandise therein mentioned “were regularly handled by defendant’s employees as the needs of the business required.” The merchandise had moved interstate and the fact that some of it was acquired intrastate is immaterial, [citation omitted] The admitted handling of the merchandise by the employees in the regular course of defendant’s business made them engaged in the production of goods for commerce. 483 F.2d at 1337 .”
    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.