Ector Water Co. v. Kyle L. Easley

Fifth Circuit

Ector Water Co. v. Kyle L. Easley

325 F.2d 91, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3508, 48 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1963

Docket20510

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 91 (Ector Water Co. v. Kyle L. Easley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ector Water Co. v. Kyle L. Easley, 325 F.2d 91, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3508, 48 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,510 (5th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219. The Employer is a water supply company which furnishes water for industrial use to companies engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The successful Employee was a pump mechanic whose duties included handling of telephone calls, special requests, emergencies, and the like during “off-duty” times. The jury verdict upon which the judgment appealed from is based is amply supported by the evidence. This applies equally to the issue of required availability during times after completion of the Employee’s regular tour of duty and also to the total overtime implied by the dollar and cent verdict. We have carefully considered the other specifications of error and find all to be without merit. In the circumstances of this case and also the appeal, the attorney’s fee allowed by the trial court is reasonably adequate compensation so no additional sum need be awarded for services on the appeal.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219. The Employer is a water supply company which furnishes water for industrial use to companies engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The successful Employee was a pump mechanic whose duties included handling of telephone calls, special requests, emergencies, and the like during “off-duty” times. The jury verdict upon which the judgment appealed from is based is amply supported by the evidence. This applies equally to the issue of required availability during times after completion of the Employee’s regular tour of duty and also to the total overtime implied by the dollar and cent verdict. We have carefully considered the other specifications of error and find all to be without merit. In the circumstances of this case and also the appeal, the attorney’s fee allowed by the trial court is reasonably adequate compensation so no additional sum need be awarded for services on the appeal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 91, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 3508, 48 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ector-water-co-v-kyle-l-easley-ca5-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack