Watson v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis
909 F.2d 1549 · 1990
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Mark Tourscher v. Martin Horn Secretary of the Pa Dept of Corrections (1999), Hale v. State of Arizona (1993)
44 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1994
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc. · Flood v. Kuhn · Walker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the states or in any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). The Fifth Circuit uses the “economic reality” test to evaluate whether there is an employer/employee relationship____ To determine whether an individual or entity is an employer, the court considers whether the alleged employer: (1) possessed the power to hire and fire the employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records. In cases where there may be more than one employer, this court must apply the economic realities test to each individual or entity alleged to be an employer and each must satisfy the four part test.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an action by the master causing the servant to have, or to believe he has, no way to avoid continued service or confinement.”
3 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.