Bueno v. Mattner’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 1380 · 1987
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Bartling v. Fruehauf Corp. (1994), Bartling
18 federal appellate · 6 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 29 U.S.C. § 1803 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 7 U.S.C. § 2041
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank · Logarusic v. United States · De La Fuente v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendants stress that the statute does require an intentional violation and that finding an intentional violation in a case such as this one would effectively eliminate the term “intentional” from the provision. We reject defendants’ claim and find in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which has rejected the claim that a defendant may not be held hable where the defendant was unaware of the existence or applicability of the statute. In Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1035 , 106 S.Ct. 1245 , 89 L.Ed.2d 353 (1986), the defendants argued that they had no knowledge of the existence of the FLORA. The court stated in dicta that that argument was meritless, emphasizing that “[t]he focus under the standard we adopted [in Castillo ] is on the deliberateness of the conduct involved, not the defendant’s knowledge of the Act.” Id. at 1345 n. 5. It reasoned that the intentional requirement must be construed “so as to further the Act’s remedial purposes.” 765 F.2d at 1345 ____ Even assuming that they had no knowledge of the MSAWPA and its applicability to them, defendants in the case before us “do not argue that they negligently or carelessly failed to take the steps required to comply with these provisions of the Act.” ... We affirm the District Court’s conclusion that defendants thus intentionally violated the Act’s provisions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Joint Appendix at 108, and that at least one worker had learned about the farm through a former employee. We disagree with the court's holding that these gratuitous recommendations were also farm labor contracting activities performed on defendants' behalf 4 The”
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.