Brennan v. Partida’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 707 · 1974
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2024
11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 203
Relies on Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb · Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc. · United Mine Workers of America v. Benedict Coal Corporation · Gulf King Shrimp Company v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n 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 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. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marshall v. Partida“Because of the summary nature of the trial court’s finding of fact, we are unable to discern the basis of the court’s determination that the claimants worked only two hours each day. A hearing on remand is necessary, therefore, to deter mine the amount of time for which the claimants were entitled to be compensated under the FLSA.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Marshall v. Partida“. . . a compliance officer's testimony may be sufficient, if reasonable based upon sound underlying facts, CT Page 12647 to make a prima facie case for the employee . . .”
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.