Welch v. Laney’s Empirical Analysis
57 F.3d 1004 · 1995
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Shotz v. City of Plantation (2003), Mitchell v. Chapman (2003)
29 federal appellate · 4 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Brandon v. Holt · Busby v. City of Orlando · Bank v. Pitt · Parker v. Williams
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(а) ... Employers covered by FMLA also include any person acting, directly or indirectly, in the interest of a covered employer to any of the employees of the employer.... (d) An “employer” includes any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employer’s employees. The definition of “employer” in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers “acting in the interest of an employer” are individually liable for any violations of the l-equirements of FMLA.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“Did the employment take place on the alleged employer’s premises? How much control did the ostensible employer have over the putative employee? Did the alleged employer have the power to fire, hire, or modify the employment conditions of the person claiming to be its employee?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“officers had at least a reasonable suspicion that the toolbox might contain something relevant to their administrative search.” Id. 32 . As already held by the district court. 33 . Sheriff Beary, sued in his official capacity, is not, of course, entitled to, nor has he asserted, the individual capacity defense of qualified immunity. Furthermore, "where a plaintiff brings an action against a public official in his official capacity, the suit is against the office that official represents, and not the official himself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bruce v. Beary
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.