Hoffmann v. Sbarro, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 22 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Myers v. Hertz Corp. (2010), Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp. (2001)
5 federal appellate · 22 district ·
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. § 207 · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Auer v. Robbins
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 149 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At step one, the district court permits a notice to be sent to potential opt-in plaintiffs if the named plaintiffs make a modest factual showing that they and others together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law. [ Myers ,] 624 F.[3]d at 555. At step two, with the benefit of additional factual development, the district court determines whether the collective action may go forward by determining whether the opt-in plaintiffs are in fact similarly situated to the named plaintiffs. Id.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n action to recover ... liability ... may be maintained against any employer ... by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The effect of making impermissible disciplinary deductions from 'salaried' employees is discussed in § 541.118(a)(6). Where a onetime disciplinary deduction is made, the exemption will not be considered to have been lost in all workweeks if the employer reimburses the employee for such deduction and agrees to not take any such impermissible deduction in the future. Where disciplinary deductions not permitted by the Regulations occur on a regular and recurring basis (e.g., because of an employer’s policy), we would question whether such employees, including all of those in the ‘class’ or ‘category’ of employees affected by such deductions, are actually paid on a salary basis and the exemption may be denied in all workweeks.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.