Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 985 F.2d 129 - Martin v. Deiriggi

Martin v. Deiriggi’s Empirical Analysis

985 F.2d 129 · 1992

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Carter v. Ball (1994), Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo (1999)

29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

2901992200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 217 · 29 U.S.C. § 255

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · Brock v. Superior Care, Inc. · Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is well-settled that decisions regarding the admission and exclusion of evidence are peculiarly within the province of the district court, not to be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he six page complaint at issue here discussed liquidated damages in two different paragraphs”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the statutory scheme gives the Secretary a choice: if she wants to recover liquidated damages, the price she pays is a jury trial' for the defendant on the back pay issue; if she would rather forgo the jury trial, she can opt for injunc-tive relief under § 217 and obtain a, back pay award as an equitable remedy incidental to an injunction.”
    1 later decision 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.