United States v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.2d 987 · 1986
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling (1990), Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical Inc (1991)
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 260
Relies on Sierra Club v. Morton · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · National League of Cities v. Usery · Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the provision requiring named party plaintiffs to opt in by filing written consent forms with the court. Together the amendments banning representative actions and requiring individual written consents sought “to eradicate the problem of totally uninvolved employees gaining recovery as a result of some third party’s action in filing suit.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The legislative history concerning The Portal-to-Portal amendment and its reference to banning “representative” actions, makes clear that Congress’ concern did not relate to the type of action in which the present discovery order was issued. Senator Donnell, chairman of the subcommittee which conducted hearings on the amendments explained the rationale for § 16(b): We now proceed to the final portion of the bill, Part IV. Section 8 contains a provision entitled “Representative Actions Banned.” Let me just say a word about what is meant by representative actions. It will be recalled that in section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act there is a provision reading as follows: Action to recover such liability- This is, the liability for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages- Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. It will be observed, Mr. President, that two types of actions are permitted under this sentence in section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: First, a suit by one or more employees, for himself and all other employees similarly situated. That I shall call for purposes of identification a collective action, a suit brought by one collectively for himself and others. The second class of actions authorized by that sentence embrace those in which an agent or a repre”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An action to recover the liability prescribed in either of the preceding sentences may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is ñled in the court in which such action is brought.”
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.