Waters v. Baldwin County’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Kentucky v. Graham · Busby v. City of Orlando · Dole v. Elliott Travel & Tours, 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The definition of “employer” in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers “acting in the interest of an employer” are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of the FMLA”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(ii)(I). 2 . See Stubl v. T.A. Systems, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 1075 (E.D.Mich.l997)(”
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.