Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.

Sixth Circuit

Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.

145 F.2d 163, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1944

DocketNo. 9755

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 145 F.2d 163 (Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 145 F.2d 163, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427 (6th Cir. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Notwithstanding some more or less remote approaches to the present problem in Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, and Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83, it is impossible for us to entertain the concept that window cleaning becomes interstate commerce, or is in pursuance of the production of goods for commerce, by the fact that the windows that are cleansed are in the manufacturing establishments of industries engaged in interstate commerce, nor are we able to reject the concept that a window cleaning company is a service establishment, under § 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a), even though the service it renders is not performed on its own premises. We adhere to our rationalization in Lonas v. National Linen Service Corp., 6 Cir., 136 F.2d 433, 150 A.L.R. 697, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 785, 64 S.Ct. 157.

Wherefore, the judgment below dismissing the appellant’s suit for over-time pay based upon the provisions of the Act, is hereby affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Notwithstanding some more or less remote approaches to the present problem in Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, and Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83, it is impossible for us to entertain the concept that window cleaning becomes interstate commerce, or is in pursuance of the production of goods for commerce, by the fact that the windows that are cleansed are in the manufacturing establishments of industries engaged in interstate commerce, nor are we able to reject the concept that a window cleaning company is a service establishment, under § 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 213(a), even though the service it renders is not performed on its own premises. We adhere to our rationalization in Lonas v. National Linen Service Corp., 6 Cir., 136 F.2d 433, 150 A.L.R. 697, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 785, 64 S.Ct. 157.

Wherefore, the judgment below dismissing the appellant’s suit for over-time pay based upon the provisions of the Act, is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 F.2d 163, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martino-v-michigan-window-cleaning-co-ca6-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack