Kelley v. Alamo’s Empirical Analysis
964 F.2d 747 · 1992
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently January 2022
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 216
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates · Thoen v. United States · Anderson v. Montgomery Ward & 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and was contrary to the purposes of the FLSA. We agree. The FLSA should be given a broad reading, in favor of coverage. It is a remedial statute that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“in this suit, she had a very substantial interest that would be affected by the district court's decision. Providing adequate advance notice of procedures that may affect the substantive rights of litigants is an integral part of the notion of fundamental fairness underpinning the guarantee of due process provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Cf. Thoen v. United States, 765 F.2d 1110, 1114-15 (D.C.Cir.1985) (court, noting that the courts' rules embody the notion of fundamental fairness”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kelley v. Alamo“class plaintiffs' " proofs of damages. BACKGROUND This case is another chapter in the continuing saga of the employees of Tony Alamo attempting to collect wages to which they are legally entitled. This action commenced October 12, 1988. Count I of the Complaint was for unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 , et seq. The original complaint was subsequently amended February 8, 1990. This action has been styled a "class action”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kelley v. Alamo
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.