993 F. Supp. 2d 497 - Elat v. Ngoubene’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1.Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 132) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. a. The Court holds that Defendants are not liable, and therefore issues judgment for Defendants, for the following unpaid time: i.Plaintiffs’ unpaid wait time at the warehouse each morning before traveling to jobsites, excluding those instances where Plaintiffs had previously performed warehouse work. ii. Plaintiffs’ unpaid travel time from the warehouse to jobsites and back to the warehouse, excluding those instances where Plaintiffs had previously performed warehouse work. iii. Plaintiffs’ unpaid time spent collecting paychecks. b. The Court holds that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether Defendants are liable for the following unpaid time, and so Defendants’ motion is denied as to: i. Plaintiffs’ unpaid time spent working at the warehouse, and subsequent waiting and travel time. ii. Plaintiffs’ unpaid wait time at jobsites, before Defendants’ moving truck and equipment had arrived. 2. Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 137) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ affidavits (ECF No. 140) is DENIED AS MOOT.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 92 F. Supp. 3d 405 - Jones v. Hoffberger Moving Services LLC

2. “Although the record is replete with evidence that Plaintiff left the Ngoubene home on various occasions and returned, this evidence must be considered under the totality of the circumstances. As discussed, Plaintiff followed the directions of adult authority figures, including her mother, aunt and uncle, and perhaps her cousin Caroline Ngoubene, without question. Therefore, even though she left the Ngoubene home for errands and returned, and even trav-elled to Cameroon with the Ngoubenes in the summer of 2007 and then returned to them home in the United States, departing Cameroon after the Ngoubenes already had left and bringing her daughter to live with her at the Ngoubene home, there is a sufficient dispute of material fact to permit a jury to determine whether Plaintiff understood that she had any other option.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Guobadia v. Irowa

3. “[C]onclud[ing] that permitting private litigants to bring suit under Section 1595 for violations of Sections 1589 and 1590 based on conduct predating December 19, 2003 would have an impermissible retroactive effect, one that this Court declines to endorse absent an affirmative contrary expression of intent from Congress.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barjo v. Cherian