Bloch v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1992
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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern · Johnson v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. · George Lawley & Son Corp. v. South · Fanelli v. United States Gypsum Co. · Shadoin v. Sellars
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The complainant has the burden of .establishing by competent evidence the existence and extent of overtime employment. Where the evidence is. uncertain and conjectural as to. the-amount of overtime employment there is not sufficient substance upon which a finding can be predicated. Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172 . . But this does not mean that documentary evidence is necessary to establish the plaintiff’s claim or that the plaintiff’s evidence must establish his; claim! in full. Even though the evidence may be uncertain as to the exact amount of overtime employment, yet it may show very conclusively that a certain minimum amount of overtime employment actually existed. * * * In this case the complainant claims two hours overtime employment during the five regnlar work days of each week, and! an additional four hours of overtime employment on Saturday. The evidence is too. uncertain annd indefinite to> support the cláim for the two hours' during, the five regular work days. During those five days he worked approximately 8 hours a day for a total of 40 hours, sometimes more, sometimes less. No accurate record is available to show whether, over the period of time in question, he exceeded or fell below the prescribed 40 hours for the first five work days. The evidence justifies the finding that the complainant worked 40 hours on the first 5 days in each of the work-weeks in question, but it is insufficient to establish how much, if any, overtime work was given ”
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.