Citation network
Morrison-knudsen Vs. Director, Owcp
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1983
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Morrison-Knudsen v. DirectorSearch
-
OWCP - 461 U.S. 624 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Morrison-Knudsen v. DirectorSearch
-
OWCP, 461 U.S. 624 (1983) Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
Hilyer v. Morrison-KnudsenSearch
-
use the employer's contribution to purchase benefits of equivalent value, it relied on United States ex rel. Sherman v. CarterSearch
-
supra, and not for the benefit of the individual workers, is even more amorphous. United States ex rel. Sherman v. CarterSearch
-
See Page 461 U. S. 632 also United States v. EmbassySearch
-
stated that a word is presumed to have the same meaning in all subsections of the same statute, see Mohasco Corp. v. SilverSearch
-
has consistently taken the position that fringe benefits are not includible in wages, see Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
OWCP, 686 F.2d 1336 (CA9 1982), and letters filed by the Department of Labor in Levis v. FarmersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Export Co., appeal pending, No. 81-4258 (CA5), and Waters v. FarmersSearch
-
case, the Benefits Review Board had uniformly rejected the argument pressed by respondent Hilyer. See, e.g., Waters v. FarmersSearch
-
Freer v. Duncanson-HarrelsonSearch
-
Co., 9 BRBS 888 (1979), rev'd in pertinent part and remanded sub nom. Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
Lawson v. AtlanticSearch
-
Collins v. ToddSearch
-
practice of the agencies charged with the enforcement and interpretation of the Act are entitled to deference. NLRB v. HendricksSearch
-
Nemours & Co. v. CollinsSearch
-
Potomac Electric Power Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
one-third of labor costs by the middle of the next century, ibid. This shift in the relative value of take-home pay versus fringeSearch
-
their affairs. If these reasonable expectations are to be altered, that is a task for Congress, J. W. Bateson Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
does not include employer contributions to union trust funds. See, e.g., Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
Browder v. UnitedSearch
-
Johnson v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 163 F. 30, 32 (1908) (Circuit Justice), quoted in United States v. HutchesonSearch
-
of the States to apply their workers' compensation laws to injured maritime workers. See Southern Pacific Co. v. JensenSearch
-
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. StewartSearch
-
Winfield v. NewSearch
-
York C. & H.R. R. Co., 216 N.Y. 284, 289, 110 N.E. 614, 616 (1915) (emphasis added). Accord, Marhoffer v. MarhofferSearch
-
Vogler v. OntarioSearch
-
Berenowski v. AnchorSearch
-
has not sought to alter that interpretation although it has amended the statute in other respects. United States v. RutherfordSearch
-
of the Benefits Review Board that addressed the issue of fringe benefits was rendered only six years ago. See Collins v. ToddSearch
-
NLRB v. BellSearch
-
and it certainly does not involve a contemporaneous construction of a statute, cf. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. CollinsSearch
-
Intercounty Construction Corp. v. WalterSearch
-
Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co. v. NortonSearch
-
The only other Court of Appeals to address this question has reached the same conclusion. Duncanson-Harrelson Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
United States v. CrystalSearch
-
F.Supp. 220 (ND Ohio 1941), the Miller Act, see United States ex rel. Sherman v. CarterSearch
-
U. S. 210 (1957), and state workers' compensation schemes, e.g., Hite v. EvartSearch
-
Even the existing calculation of wages under the Longshoremen's Act requires valuation of overtime, Gray v. GeneralSearch
-
Dynamics Corp., 5 BRBS 279 (1976), vacation pay, Baldwin v. GeneralSearch
-
Dynamics Corp., 5 BRBS 579 (1977), meals furnished employees, see Harris v. LambrosSearch
-
App.D.C. 16, 56 F.2d 488 (1932), and such exotic items as automobile parts, Carter v. GeneralSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial