Gilligan v. City of Emporia’s Empirical Analysis
986 F.2d 410 · 1993
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably United Transportation Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque (1999), Ruffino v. North Slope Borough (1994)
15 federal appellate · 9 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
Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co. · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · Ada v. Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists
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.
“[A]n employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing, or to do nothing but wait for something to happen. Refraining from other activity often is a factor of instant readiness to serve, and idleness plays a part in all employments in a stand-by capacity. Readiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself, and time spent lying in wait for threats to the safety of the employer's property may be treated by the parties as a benefit to the employer. Whether time is spent predominantly for the employer's benefit or for the employee's is a question dependent upon all the circumstances of the case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]ven though plaintiffs' activities may be somewhat restricted while they are on call, the restrictions are not so prohibitive that it can be said that their on-call time is spent predominantly for the employer's benefit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The regulations provide that on-call time is compensable if the employee is required to remain on the employer's premises, 29 C.F.R. 785.17, and if on-call time spent off premises is so restricted that the employee cannot use the time effectively for personal pursuits, 29 C.F.R. 553.221(d).”
1 later decision 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.