Avila v. A. Sam & Sons’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2020
3 federal appellate ·
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. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 1802 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1811 (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. § 1822 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1823 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1841 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 1842 (Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · WCLR Radio Station v. Rengers · Graham v. Commissioner · Skaw v. United States · Graham v. Commissioner
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Plaintiffs argue that the term ‘recruit’ under 29 U.S.C. § 1821 does not require proof of advanced recruitment but is equivalent to ‘hiring’ of plaintiffs. This argument is unpersuasive. The statute does not define the term ‘recruit’. However, the legislative history contemplates that disclosure under 29 U.S.C. § 1821 (a) would occur before the actual migration to the work site: ‘In the case of most migrant agricultural workers this recruitment and accompanying disclosure will occur before the worker leaves his permanent place of residence, although it may also occur en route as in the case of the migrant family on their way to employment in a distant state which learns from a recruiter while traveling that better work is available at a different destination. The [purpose of the disclosure provision is] to ensure that workers to the greatest possible extent have full information about where they are going and what the conditions will be when they arrive before they begin their journey.’ H.R.Rep. No. 97-885, supra at 14, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4560. The AWPA’s legislative history makes clear that the purpose of the disclosure provisions is to permit the migrant workers to make informed choices about offers of employment before traveling great distances to harvest crops. There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest that the recruitment phase continues right up to the time the workers are actually hired by the employer. The ‘recruitment’ of a migrant worker ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[TJhe term “migrant agricultural worker” means an individual who is employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.