Moore v. J. A. Jones Const. Co.

Fifth Circuit

Moore v. J. A. Jones Const. Co.

163 F.2d 1014

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 4, 1947

DocketNo. 11915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 F.2d 1014 (Moore v. J. A. Jones Const. Co.) 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

Moore v. J. A. Jones Const. Co., 163 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The suit, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., was for unpaid overtime and other compensation. The district judge, of the opinion that, under L. P. Phillips, et al. v. Graham Aviation Company, 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443, appellants’ complaint did not state a case for recovery, sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that the persons for whom the suit was brought were engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The cited case on which the judge relied is not in point. It did not deal with persons so employed. It was error to dismiss the claim. Under a long line of cases, of which Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 65 S.Ct. 165, 89 L.Ed. 118; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161. 89 L.Ed. 124, are the controlling ones, the judgment is reversed and fhe cause is remanded for trial on the merits.

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

PER CURIAM.

The suit, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., was for unpaid overtime and other compensation. The district judge, of the opinion that, under L. P. Phillips, et al. v. Graham Aviation Company, 5 Cir., 157 F.2d 443, appellants’ complaint did not state a case for recovery, sustained defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs’ suit alleged that the persons for whom the suit was brought were engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The cited case on which the judge relied is not in point. It did not deal with persons so employed. It was error to dismiss the claim. Under a long line of cases, of which Kirschbaum v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638; Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126, 65 S.Ct. 165, 89 L.Ed. 118; Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161. 89 L.Ed. 124, are the controlling ones, the judgment is reversed and fhe cause is remanded for trial on the merits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 F.2d 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-j-a-jones-const-co-ca5-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack