Beebe v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 1283 · 1981
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Brown Park Estates-Fairfield Development Co. v. United States (1997), Zumerling v. Devine (1985)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 26 U.S.C. § 7428 · 28 U.S.C. § 1920 · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 204 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 260
Relies on United States v. King · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Willard Dairy Corp. v. National Dairy Products Corp. · Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party. Mary P. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Air Line Pilots Association, Non-Aligned Party · United States v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“may be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, and every such action shall be forever barred unless commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued, except that a cause of action arising out of a willful violation may be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to ... [the lawsuit] was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ... the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount [of back pay liability].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“No public agency shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) of this section with respect to the employment of any employee in fire protection activities or any employee in law enforcement activities (including security personnel in correctional institutions) if— (1) in a work period of 28 consecutive days the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed the lesser of (A) 216 hours, or (B) the average number of hours (as determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 6(c)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974) in tours of duty of employees engaged in such activities in work periods of 28 consecutive days in calendar year 1975; or (2) in the case of such an employee to whom a work period of at least 7 but less than 28 days applies, in his work period the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed a number of hours which bears the same ratio to the number of consecutive days in his work period as 216 hours (or if lower, the number of hours referred to in clause (B) of paragraph (1) bears to 28 days,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.