McLaughlin US v. Seafood Inc’s Empirical Analysis
861 F.2d 450 · 1988
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Dole v. Snell (1989), Dong Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, Inc. (2007)
5 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · United States v. Silk · Logarusic v. United States · Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No one of these considerations can become the final determinant, nor can the collective answers to all of the inquiries produce a resolution which submerges the dominant factor — economic depend-ence_ The five tests are aids — tools to be used to gauge the degree of dependence of alleged employees on the business with which they are connected. It is dependence that indicates employee status. Each test must be applied with that ultimate notion in mind. More importantly, the final and determinative question must be whether the total of the testing-establishes the personnel are so dependent upon the business with which they are connected that they come within the protection of the FLSA or are sufficiently independent to lie outside its ambit. [Emphasis in original.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“8 As a matter of economic reality, there can be little doubt that the backers, pickers, and peelers were economically dependent upon their employer. The only question, therefore, is whether the fact that the workers moved frequently from plant to plant and from employer to employer removed them from the protections of the FLSA. We hold that it did not. 4 The remedial purposes of the FLSA require the courts to define”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[elven if the freedom to work for multiple employers may provide something of a safety net, unless a worker possesses specialized and widely-demanded skills, that freedom is hardly the same as true economic independence.”
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.