Rogers v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
563 F.2d 617 · 1977
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge (2011), Tri-M Group, LLC v. Sharp (2011)
13 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Leonor Alberti Decanas and Miguel Canas,s, v. Anthony G. Bica and Juan Silva. · Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission · Goldstein v. California
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to assure [employers] an adequate labor force on the one hand and to protect the jobs of citizens on the other.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here field preemption[ [7] ] is present[,] `the subject matter of the federal and local laws is such that the two laws or regulatory schemes must inherently either conflict or be duplicative. That is, under this test it is impossible to have local regulation in the subject area that does not conflict with or duplicate federal regulation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any statutory scheme with these two purposes must inevitably strike a balance between the two goals. Clearly, citizen-workers would be best protected and assured high wages if no aliens were allowed to enter. Conversely, elimination of all restrictions upon entry would most effectively provide employers with an ample labor force. The conflict arises because the Virgin Islands and the United States strike the balance between these two goals differently .... The federal provisions imply that one of the considerations behind the federal regulations is continuity of the work force. Therefore, an employer can expect that an alien-worker’s stay will not be terminated under federal law until the date specified on the Labor Department’s certification or, if the certification does not specify a date, for a period of one year. In addition to providing employers a reasonable expectation that there will not be frequent and disruptive turnovers in his work force due to Government actions, the federal regulations provide aliens with an incentive to come to the United States; they know they will be able to work until the expiration of the certificate or for a period of at least one year.”
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.