Friedrich v. U.S. Computer Services’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 12 district ·

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

1. “[Plaintiff] is correct that § 13505 covers [Defendant], because [Defendant’s] transportation is in furtherance of a primary business other than transportation-the beer and beverage wholesaling business. But the remainder of [Plain-tiffj’s argument falters. On the basis of [Defendant’s] involvement in another primary business other than transportation, § 13505 exempts it from the Secretary’s jurisdiction, as specified “in this part, over transportation of property by motor vehicle.” 49 U.S.C. § 13505 (emphasis added). Section 13505 is a provision of Part B of Subtitle IV of Title 49, 49 U.S.C. §§ 13101-14914 . That Part contains provisions authorizing the DOT to enact registration and security (insurance and bonding) requirements for motor carriers, freight forwarders, and brokers. See 49 U.S.C. § 13902 (registration requirements for motor carriers); § 13903 (registration requirements for freight forwarders); § 13904 (registration requirements for brokers); see also § 13906 (bonding and insurance requirements for motor carriers, freight forwarders, and brokers). Section 13505 has no bearing on the Secretary’s power, as described in 29 U.S.C. § 213 (b)(1), “to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49.” Section 31502 falls under a different part of Title 49. It falls in Part B of Subtitle VI relating to “Motor Vehicle and Driver Programs.” The fact that § 13505 denies the Secretary power to prescribe economic a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 470 F. Supp. 2d 1025 - King v. Asset Appraisal Services, Inc. · Packard v. Pittsburgh Transportation Co.

2. “The “motor carrier” exemption to the FLSA exception provides in pertinent part: “(b) The provisions of section 207 of this title [the FLSA] shall not apply with respect to — (1) any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 [formerly section 3102] of Title 49” 29 U.S.C. § 213 (b)(1) (emphasis added). Section 31502, “requirements for qualifications, hours of service, safety and equipment standards” provides: (b) Motor carrier and motor private carrier requirements. — The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for — (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualification and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation, 19 U.S.C. § 31502 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 205 F. Supp. 2d 1104 - Spears v. Preston Refrigeration Co., Inc. · 940 F. Supp. 1255 - Turk v. Buffets, Inc.

3. “(A) the transportation is [across state lines, as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 13501 ];[ 2 ] (B) the person is the owner, lessee, or bailee of the property being transported; and (C) the property is being transported for sale, lease, rent, or bailment or to further a commercial enterprise.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Badgett v. Rent-Way, Inc. · 334 F. Supp. 2d 1258 - Anderson v. Timber Products Inspection, Inc.