Alonzo v. Maximus, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · 20 Cal. 4th 163 - Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. · 29 Cal. 4th 1134 - Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. · Idaho Sheet Metal Works, Inc. v. Wirtz
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rounding” practices. It has been found that in some industries, particularly where time clocks are used, there has been the practice for many years of recording the employees’ starting time and stopping time to the nearest 5 minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour. Presumably, this arrangement averages out so that the employees are fully compensated for all the time they actually work. For enforcement purposes this practice of computing working time will be accepted, provided that it is used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they have actually worked.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Much to the relief of math teachers everywhere, the California Court Appeal and courts of this District have held that performing simple math alone is not an injury compensable under California law. This Court now joins them.”). . At the January 27, 2014 hearing on the parties' cross-motions, KForce conceded that there is a genuine dispute as to whether there was a violation of Labor Code section 201. . Ms. Gunawan’s FAC alleges that her”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Courts interpreting California law have recognized that 'the possibility of not being paid overtime, employee confusion over whether they received all wages owed them, difficulty and expense in reconstructing pay records, and forcing employees to make mathematical computations to analyze whether the wages paid in fact compensated them for all hours worked' can constitute an injury under section 226(e).”
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.