Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 959 FSUPP 721 - Spencer v. Hyde County

Spencer v. Hyde County’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 215

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Armour & Co. v. Wantock

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In sum, while not identical to the facts of O’Brien, the court finds that the facts of this case, particularly due to the geographic limitations involved, pose perhaps more stringent restrictions on plaintiffs’ use of their personal time than did the restrictions placed on the plaintiff in O’Brien. For example, because Ocracoke has only a few small food stores, plaintiffs claim they cannot go off the island to shop at a supermarket while on-call. Additionally, such routine personal tasks as going to the dentist or having car repairs done are impossible for plaintiffs to perform while on-call. In light of O’Brien, the [DOL] Opinion Letter, and all the facts and circumstances in this case, the court is persuaded that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiffs are “engaged to wait” because of the degree to which the on-call time interferes with their effectively using this time for personal use. Therefore, [Hyde County’s] motion for summary judgment is DENIED as to this issue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “evidently concede that plaintiffs' entitlement to a minimum wage and overtime pay for on-call work time is governed by the FLSA”); Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co., 331 N.C. 348, 354 , 416 S.E.2d 166, 170 (1992) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.