Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 733 F.2d 720 - Doty v. Elias

Doty v. Elias’s Empirical Analysis

733 F.2d 720 · 1984

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
4
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Wheeler v. Hurdman (1987), Renfro v. City of Emporia (1991)

35 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions

3101984199020002010decided

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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 211 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 260

Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Bartels v. Birmingham

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

  1. “Under 29 U.S.C. § 260 , if in any action to recover unpaid overtime compensation an employer "shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of the FLSA," the court may refuse to award liquidated damages. All circuits that have considered the matter hold that the trial court may eliminate or reduce the award of liquidated damages only if the employer shows both that he acted in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his actions did not violate the Act.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the degree of control exerted by the alleged employer over the worker; (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss; (3) the worker’s investment in the business; (4) the permanence of the working relationship; ... (5) the degree of skill required to perform the work ... [and (6) ] the extent to which the work is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]f the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action 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 of 1938, as amended, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in section 216 of this title.”
    2 later decisions 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.