Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma County, Mississippi, Cross-Appellants

986 F.2d 100, 37 F.3d 1068, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 38154, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 536, 1993 WL 742684
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 4, 1993
Docket90-1122
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 986 F.2d 100 (Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma County, Mississippi, Cross-Appellants) 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
Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma County, Mississippi, Cross-Appellants, 986 F.2d 100, 37 F.3d 1068, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 38154, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 536, 1993 WL 742684 (5th Cir. 1993).

Opinion

ORDER:

The motion of defendants to recall the mandate heretofore issued in this case for the purpose of correcting a typographical error in the opinion reported at Lee v. Coahoma County, Miss., 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1991), is GRANTED.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the mandate previously issued in this ease is recalled, that the citation in footnote 2 of the *1069 Court’s opinion be changed from 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 to 29 C.F.R. § 553.233, so that the footnote will read as follows:

In determining each deputy’s hourly wage in a given work period, the district court should multiply the deputy’s monthly salary by twelve to get a yearly salary, including a two week paid vacation to which each deputy is entitled. The district court should then divide the yearly salary by the number of work periods in a year. The court should then divide the sum by the number of regular hours which may be worked in that work period according to 29 C.F.R. § 553.233. This will result in a determination of each deputy’s appropriate hourly wage in the work period determined by the district court,

and that the mandate be reissued immediately as herein amended.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and for assessment of fees and costs be DENIED, and that this Order be published.

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

Related

Rojo v. Burger One LLC
N.D. Texas, 2024
George Alvarez v. City of Brownsville
904 F.3d 382 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
Moreno v. EDCare Management, Inc.
243 F.R.D. 258 (W.D. Texas, 2007)
Modica v. Taylor
465 F.3d 174 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Hurns v. Mississippi Dept. of Corrections
878 So. 2d 223 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2004)
Morrow v. Putnam
142 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Nevada, 2001)
Oden v. Oktibbeha County MS
246 F.3d 458 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Baker v. Stone County, Mo.
41 F. Supp. 2d 965 (W.D. Missouri, 1999)
Barfield v. Madison County, Miss.
984 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Mississippi, 1997)
Reich v. Priba Corp.
890 F. Supp. 586 (N.D. Texas, 1995)
Bagrowski v. Maryland Port Authority
845 F. Supp. 1116 (D. Maryland, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
986 F.2d 100, 37 F.3d 1068, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 38154, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 536, 1993 WL 742684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaac-lee-cross-appellees-v-coahoma-county-mississippi-cross-appellants-ca5-1993.