Bayer v. Courtemanche’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · McLeod v. Threlkeld · Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling · D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Gangi · 10 East 40th Street Building, Inc. v. Callus
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * there has been no showing that the time for lunch was too short for the production workers to eat outside, nor that restaurants were not available nearby, nor that the service in them was inadequate for the workers in the area, nor, indeed, that any great proportion of the production employees of the plant availed themselves of the cafeteria at meal times. “Had any of these elements been shown by the plaintiff, it might be that his work could be considered necessary * *”
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.