Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 FSUPP 954 - Holland v. Altmeyer

Holland v. Altmeyer’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
July 1961
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 402 (§ 202 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc. · Gray v. Powell · Walker v. Altmeyer · Social Security Board v. Warren

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

  1. “. “At the outset, it seems clear that this Court cannot substitute its inferences from the admitted facts in place of those indicated by the Referee. The judgment of the administrative body must prevail if the ‘judgment was based upon conclusions reasonably reached upon due consideration of all relevant issues presented after parties in interest had been given a fair hearing or a fair opportunity to be heard upon the facts and the applicable law. Gray v. Powell, 314 U.S. 402 , 62 S.Ct. 326 , 86 L.Ed. 301 .’ Walker v. Altmeyer, 2 Cir., 137 F.2d 531, 533 . Granted that the element of control as reflected in this record over the details and means by which the supervisory duties of the District Supervisor should be performed may seem to fall short of meeting the standards which many cases require in spelling out the relationship of employer and employee, the Court should not be unmindful of the responsibility which Congress has vested in this administrative body under the Social Security Act. The language of the Supreme Court in National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst [Publications, Inc.], 322 U.S. 111, 130 , 64 S.Ct. 851, 860 , 88 L.Ed. 1170 , which states, ‘That task has been assigned primarily to the agency created by Congress to administer the Act,’ is applicable herein. What this Court may deduce from the admitted facts might seem more sound and plausible than the findings of the Referee in light of the generally accepted definition of employer and employee and in light of ”
    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.