Hill v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
751 F.2d 810 · 1984
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. (1997), Lamon v. City of Shawnee (1992)
21 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 5 U.S.C. § 5544 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg v. United States
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Bona fide meal periods. Bona fide meal periods are not work time. Bona fide meal periods do not include coffee breaks or time for snacks. These are rest periods. The employee must be completely relieved from duty for the purposes of eating regular meals. Ordinarily 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period. A shorter period may be long enough under special conditions. The employee is not relieved if he is required to perform any duties, whether active or inactive, while eating. For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be at his machine is working while eating, (emphasis added)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“to their machinery and because their meals were often interrupted by emergencies requiring their immediate attention. Id. at 496. The F.W. Stock court held: 19 So it seems to have been proven adequately that the employees did not have a free lunch period during which they could serve their own interest and do as they pleased, but that their duties and responsibilities to their employer were continued during the lunch periods. As the District Judge well said during a colloquy with counsel:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]hile the courts and the Department ... have on occasion broadly stated that compensation is required for meal periods unless the employees are relieved of all duty, it is obvious from the cases under consideration [those cited in section 785.19(a) ] that the duties in contemplation were those which restricted the employees in the free disposition of their lunch time.”
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.