9 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 57 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc. Anchor | green | “the conditional approval process is a mechanism used by district courts to establish whether potential plaintiffs in the flsa collective action should be sent a notice of their eligibility to participate and given the opportunity to opt in to the collective action.” | 11 |
| 2 | Alvarez v. City of Chicago | green | “gives employees the right to bring their flsa claims through a 'collective action' on behalf of themselves and other 'similarly situated' employees.” | 10 |
| 3 | Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co. | green | “employees are entitled to overtime pay (i.e., one and one-half times the regular rate) for any hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, unless they come within one of the various exemptions set forth in the act.” | 8 |
| 4 | Ervin v. OS Restaurant Services, Inc. | green | “a mechanism used by district courts to establish whether potential plaintiffs in the flsa collective action should be sent a notice of their eligibility to participate and given the opportunity to opt in to the collective action.” | 6 |
| 5 | Robert Schaefer v. Walker Bros. Enterprises, Inc. | green | “suits under the fair labor standards act cannot proceed as class actions. instead they are opt-in representative actions.” | 6 |
| 6 | Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. | green | “the court does not make merits determinations, weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” | 5 |
| 7 | Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. | green | “does not make merits determinations, weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” | 4 |
| 8 | Bergman v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc. | green | “weigh evidence, determine credibility, or specifically consider opposing evidence presented by a defendant.” | 4 |
| 9 | Nehmelman v. Penn National Gaming, Inc. | green | “the court does not consider the merits of a plaintiff's claims, or witness credibility” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.