Citation network
Mitchell Vs. H. B. Zachry Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 04, 1960
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
-
brought the case here, 361 U.S. 807, because of an asserted conflict between circuits. See Chambers Construction Co. v. MitchellSearch
-
F.2d 717, and Mitchell v. ChambersSearch
-
relied on our per curiam decision in Murphey v. ReedSearch
-
inconsistent with the more pragmatic test of coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As early as Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
or formulas. No exclusion of construction work from coverage can be derived from the per curiam disposition of Murphey v. ReedSearch
-
to it in a logical sense of that requirement. The statute, as illuminated by its history, see Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
St. Bldg. v. CallusSearch
-
U. S. 578 , 325 U. S. 582 -583. In Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
to production. In Borden Co. v. BorellaSearch
-
central offices, but not by any production facilities, were also within the Act's coverage. In 10 East 40th St. Bldg. v. CallusSearch
-
s scope afford direction of inquiry by defining the broad bounds within which decision must move. In Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
Alstate Construction Co. v. DurkinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
coverage was intended by both. In the House, for example, Kirschbaum was approved, and our decision in Martino v. MichiganSearch
-
for a local water distribution system. The House Report does expressly state that the case of E. C. Schroeder Co. v. CliftonSearch
-
withdrawn local activities. To establish coverage, the Secretary relies upon Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McCombSearch
-
facilities, and construction of the dam is yet another step more remote. The Secretary relies upon Mitchell v. LublinSearch
-
itself which the Act expressly covers. Compare Mitchell v. LublinSearch
-
Alstate Construction Co. v. DurkinSearch
-
Walling v. JacksonvilleSearch
-
found sufficiently related to such production to be within the Act's coverage. He relies on Alstate Construction Co. v. DurkinSearch
-
Page 362 U. S. 322 the Court's opinion in that case. The liberal construction given the Act from Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
U. S. 517 , to Alstate Construction Co. v. DurkinSearch
-
or other goods for customers using such goods in the production of different goods for interstate commerce. Reynolds v. SaltSearch
-
Phillips v. MeekerSearch
-
Lewis v. FloridaSearch
-
West Kentucky Coal Co. v. WallingSearch
-
of all water furnished by the city is used industrially. Reynolds v. SaltSearch
-
commerce were engaged in an occupation necessary for the production of goods for commerce. West Kentucky Coal Co. v. WallingSearch
-
coal sold to factories producing goods for commerce were covered by the Act. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass'n v. PhillipsSearch
-
maintaining this new dam would be covered by the Act, as our own decision in Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McCombSearch
-
See Armour & Co. v. WantockSearch
-
whether or not those facilities were owned by the producers. Such is the case of Borden Co. v. BorellaSearch
-
the cases cited by the report as Page 362 U. S. 325 also descriptive of this group of employees was Walling v. McCradySearch
-
those producing goods for commerce as was the highway in the McCrady case. Moreover, in Alstate Construction Co. v. DurkinSearch
-
Roland Electrical Co. v. WallingSearch
-
See Chambers Construction Co. v. MitchellSearch
-
and Mitchell v. ChambersSearch
-
Murphey v. ReedSearch
-
of Murphey v. ReedSearch
-
St. Bldg. v. CallusSearch
-
In Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSearch
-
In Borden Co. v. BorellaSearch
-
Martino v. MichiganSearch
-
of E. C. Schroeder Co. v. CliftonSearch
-
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McCombSearch
-
Mitchell v. LublinSearch
-
Compare Mitchell v. LublinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial