Mineo v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis
779 F.2d 939 · 1985
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Data Access Systems Securities Litigation Tolins Lowenfels Kahlowsky and Co (1988), 109 Wash. 2d 282 - Chelan County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of Chelan (1987)
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 259 · 29 U.S.C. § 260
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Linkletter v. Walker · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc. · National League of Cities v. Usery
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any public or private organization must manage its revenues to most efficiently provide services at the lowest cost. When involved in labor negotiations, the organization poses estimates of how many hours it thinks the employees will work and how much money it has to compensate them. Within those parameters, the organization may opt for various pay structures. For example, some employees may be paid more than others; some compensation may be deferred; or employees may get a higher base pay in return for reduced overtime pay. It appears that the last situation was present in the instant case. Reasonably believing itself to be unshackled from the restrictions of FLSA, the Port Authority offered an attractive base pay that was balanced by lower overtime compensation. The Detectives agreed to this arrangement. The retroactive application of [SAMTA 7] to this situation would give the Detectives increased overtime pay without any reduction in base pay. To allow the Detectives to get a pay raise premised on retroactive application of an unforeseen decision that was made almost two years after the end of the contract period would be inequitable to the Port Authority and would constitute a windfall to the Detectives.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Now that the Supreme Court has ruled explicitly that no state employees are exempt from FLSA, the Port Authority maintains, there is no reason to believe that state and municipalities will not comply in the future. We agree. The [SAMTA /] decision makes the law clear that, in the future, states must comply with FLSA. Regardless of how we decide this case, there is no reason to suspect that states would refuse to be bound by FLSA. This situation leaves us free to decide the instant case on its facts and equitable principles without concern for furthering or retarding the operation of [SAMTA /]. The second Chevron factor neither favors nor opposes the retroactive application of the [SAMTA 7] decision.”
1 later decision 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.