Brock v. Hamad’s Empirical Analysis
867 F.2d 804 · 1989
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Chao v. A-One Medical Services, Inc. (2003), Martin v. Deiriggi (1992)
11 federal appellate · 9 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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 211 · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Ristaino v. Ross · Hudson v. Palmer · Falk v. Brennan · Donovan v. Agnew · Brennan v. Arnheim & Neely, 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “Enterprise” means the related activities performed (either through unified operation or common control) by any person or persons for a common business purpose, and includes all such activities whether performed in one or more establishments ... but shall not include the related activities performed for such enterprise by an independent contractor ... (2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the activities performed by any person or persons— (A) in connection with the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution ... (regardless of whether or not such hospital, institution, or school is operated for profit or not for profit) shall be deemed to be activities for a business purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ujnder the FLSA, the Government may sue the “employer” who is responsible for complying with the various provisions of the [FLSA]. An “employer” is defined by the FLSA to include “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interests of an employer in relation to any employee.... ” 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). In this case, [the defendant] clearly was the employer; it is not disputed that he hired and directed the employees who worked for the enterprise. Even if the businesses were within a corporate structure, [the defendant] would still be the employer who would be liable for violations of the FLSA.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Hamad's argument, however, erroneously isolates Section 203(i) ['s definition of 'goods'] from the remainder of the FLSA. When Section 203(i) is read in context with Section 203(s), which covers 'employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials,' it seems that defendant's argument must fail.”
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.