Rutti v. Lojack Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Activities which are merely incidental to the use of an employer-provided vehicle for commuting at the beginning and end of the workday are similarly not considered part of the employee’s principal activity or activities and therefore need not be compensable. It is not possible to define in all circumstances what specific tasks and activities would be considered ‘incidental’ to the use of an employer’s vehicle for commuting. Communication between the employee and employer to receive assignments, or instructions or to transmit advice on work progress or completion, is required in order for these programs to exist. Likewise, routine vehicle safety inspections or other minor tasks have long been considered preliminary or postliminary activities and are therefore not compensable. Merely transporting tools or supplies should not change the noncompensable nature of the travel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · 793 F. Supp. 2d 938 - Chambers v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

2. “Periods during which an employee is completely relieved from duty and which are long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes are not hours worked. He is not completely relieved from duty and cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes unless he is definitely told in advance that he may leave the job and that he will not have to commence work until a definitely specified hour has arrived. Whether the time is long enough to enable him to use the time effectively for his own purposes depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · Ahle v. Veracity Research Co.

3. “For purposes of this subsection, the use of an employer’s vehicle for travel by an employee and activities performed by an employee which are incidental to the use of such vehicle for commuting shall not be considered part of the employee’s principal activities if the use of such vehicle for travel is within the normal commuting area for the employer’s business or establishment and the use of the employer’s vehicle is subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or representative of such employee.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Richard Chambers v. Sears Roebuck & Co. · 793 F. Supp. 2d 938 - Chambers v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.