Martin v. Funtime, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
963 F.2d 110 · 1992
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks (1993), United States v. Casas (2004)
17 federal appellate · 2 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 212 · 29 U.S.C. § 217
Relies on Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Federal Communications Commission v. Home Box Office, Inc. · Kentucky v. Indiana · Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Easter House v. United States
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of issuing an injunction against future violation is to effectuate general compliance with the Congressional policy of abolishing substandard labor conditions by preventing recurring future violations. Prospective injunctions are essential because the cost of noncompliance is placed on the employer, which lessens the responsibility of the Wage and Hour Division in investigating instances of noncompliance. The imposition of an injunction is not punitive, nor does it impose a hardship on the employer “since it requires him to do ‘what the Act requires anyway — to comply with the law.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is certain the personal [sic] records would be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) as business records. The records in this case were compiled by Funtime or its employees; were kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, i.e. personnel management; and, it was the regular practice of [the employer] to keep such records. Therefore, we find that these employment records would be admissible under the business records exception.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the records themselves could have been admitted to show what their contents did not include, there appears to be no reason why Rule 1006 would not apply to a summary of their contents.”
2 later decisions 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.