Brock v. Seto’s Empirical Analysis
790 F.2d 1446 · 1986
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Reich v. Southern New England Telecommunications Corp. (1997), Alvarez v. IBP, Inc. (2003)
12 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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
Relies on Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · United States v. McConney · Kelsaw v. Oregon
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The employer cannot be heard to complain that the damages lack the exactness and precision of measurement that would be possible had he kept records in accordance with the requirements of § 11(c) of the Act.... The employer, having received the benefits of such work, cannot object to the payment for the work on the most accurate basis possible under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee's evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.”
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.