Okerman v. VA Software Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 14 district · 18 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “when the amount of such commissions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has been definitely determined and has become due and payable to such employee.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ellicott v. Am. Capital Energy, Inc. · Levesque v. Schroder Inv. Mgmt. N. Am., Inc.

2. “[S]ection 148 explicitly refers to “employees engaged in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity” in the context of permitting said employees to be paid biweekly, semimonthly or, at the employee’s option, monthly instead of requiring them to be paid within six days of the termination of the pay period as is the case with most other employees. G.L. c. 149, § 148. Section 148 goes on to provide that “the words salaried employee shall mean any employee whose remuneration is on a weekly, bi-weekly, semimonthly, monthly or annual basis .... ” G.L. c. 149, § 148 (emphasis added). Section 148 explicitly lists categories of employees to whom “[t]his section shall not apply.” One of those categories is not highly paid employees. Had the Legislature intended the Wage Act to apply only to low-wage employees, it surely would have explicitly so said. The plain and unambiguous statutory language demonstrates that executive and professional employees, no matter how highly compensated they may be, are protected by the Wage Act from the unreasonable detention of their salary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stanton v. Lighthouse Financial Services, Inc.

3. “above and beyond” plaintiffs base salary); Com. v. Savage, 31 Mass.App.Ct. 714 , 583 N.E.2d 276, 278 (1991), more recent decisions of the Massachusetts state appellate courts have rejected such additional restrictions. See Wiedmann v. The Bradford Group, Inc., 444 Mass. 698 , 831 N.E.2d 304, 312 (2005); Okerman v. VA Software Corp., 69 Mass.App.Ct. 771 , 871 N.E.2d 1117, 1122 (2007) ("[T]he language of the wage act ... is restricted in its application only by the requirements that the commissions be "definitely determined” and "due and payable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 928 F. Supp. 2d 280 - McAleer v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America