Pons v. Lorillard’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

cited by 11 later decisions

cited 1 times by the Supreme Court

September 1988

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))

Relies on Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Curtis v. Loether · Ross v. Bernhard · Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. · Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission

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

“(a)mounts owing to a person as a result of a violation of this Act shall be deemed to be unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime compensation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Rogers v. Exxon Research & Engineering Co. · Henry Carl DEAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant
““This matter is before the Court on defendant Lorillard’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s demand for trial by jury. The question for the Court’s resolution is whether the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury extends to an action for injunctive reinstatement, lost wages, liquidated damages, and costs and attorney fees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1970). The question turns upon whether trial by jury is obtainable on the lost wages issue. Plaintiff makes no argument that the other issues will support trial by jury, and there is no authority to support such an argument.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 424 F. Supp. 1329 - Platt v. Burroughs Corp.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Curtis lends impetus towards a different result. Because a claim for monetary damages is not always legal, there is not necessarily a mixed claim at law and equity in an action for injunctive reinstatement and lost wages. What confronts the Court here is not a mixed claim, but a single cause of action which must be characterized as either legal or equitable. If the claim for lost wages is an integral part of an equitable remedy of reinstatement, then it makes no difference that monetary damages are involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. Hannon v. Continental National Bank

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.