ROCKTON & RION RAILROAD v. Walling

146 F.2d 111, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 11, 1944
Docket5281
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 146 F.2d 111 (ROCKTON & RION RAILROAD v. Walling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ROCKTON & RION RAILROAD v. Walling, 146 F.2d 111, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247 (4th Cir. 1944).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree enjoining the Rockton & Rion Railroad from violating the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The defendant is a railroad twelve miles long lying wholly within Fairfield County, S. C., and connecting with the lines of the Southern Railway Company. Its stock is owned by those who are interested in granite quarries operating along its lines, and its principal business is transporting granite produced in these quarries, a considerable portion of which moves over the lines of the Southern Railway Company in interstate commerce. It had been held by the Interstate Commerce Commission not to be a common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Part I of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., but in so far as interstate commerce is concerned, to be a plant facility not subject to the provisions of the Act. Rockton & Rion Railway, Proposed Acquisition and Operation, 189 I.C.C. 545; Weston & Brooker Co. et al. v. Southern Railway Co. et al., 243 I.C. C. 105. The court below, in an able and exhaustive opinion, set forth the facts at length and held that the employees of the railroad were engaged in commerce and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that they were not exempted from its provisions by reason of section 13(b), exempting employees of an employer subject to the provisions of Title I of the Interstate Commerce Act, We concur in the reasoning as well as in the conclusions of the judge below, and his opinion is adopted as the opinion of this court. See Walling v. Rockton & Rion R. R., D. C, 54 F.Supp. 342.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Coast Van Lines, Inc. v. Armstrong
167 F.2d 705 (Ninth Circuit, 1948)
Jackson v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
70 F. Supp. 501 (D. Minnesota, 1947)
Walling v. Morris
155 F.2d 832 (Sixth Circuit, 1946)
Walling v. Griffin Cartage Co.
62 F. Supp. 396 (E.D. Michigan, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 F.2d 111, 1944 U.S. App. LEXIS 2247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rockton-rion-railroad-v-walling-ca4-1944.