T. N. Tullis v. Seamour Shavin, Individually and D/B/A Save Supply Company

Sixth Circuit

T. N. Tullis v. Seamour Shavin, Individually and D/B/A Save Supply Company

332 F.2d 616, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209, 49 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,594

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1964

Docket15519_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 616 (T. N. Tullis v. Seamour Shavin, Individually and D/B/A Save Supply Company) 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

T. N. Tullis v. Seamour Shavin, Individually and D/B/A Save Supply Company, 332 F.2d 616, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209, 49 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,594 (6th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER:

Plaintiff-appellant filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. for the recovery of minimum wages as prescribed by the Act, together with penalty and attorney’s fees.

In a well reasoned opinion, the District Judge, the Honorable Frank W. Wilson, held that appellant was not engaged in commerce so as to come within the coverage of the Act, ruling that the activities performed by him consisted almost wholly of serving as custodian and remaining available to visitors in appellee’s model Shell Home in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and that these activities were not in interstate commerce nor so closely related to the movement of interstate commerce as to be a part of it.

Upon consideration, we agree with the District Court that appellant was not engaged in commerce, that his activities were not in or so closely related to interstate commerce as to be a part of it, and did not come within the scope of the Act, for the reasons stated.in the opinion of the District Court. Tullis v. Shavin, etc., 230 F.Supp. 52 (E.D. Tenn.).

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed. McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 87 L.Ed. 1538.

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

ORDER:

Plaintiff-appellant filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. for the recovery of minimum wages as prescribed by the Act, together with penalty and attorney’s fees.

In a well reasoned opinion, the District Judge, the Honorable Frank W. Wilson, held that appellant was not engaged in commerce so as to come within the coverage of the Act, ruling that the activities performed by him consisted almost wholly of serving as custodian and remaining available to visitors in appellee’s model Shell Home in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and that these activities were not in interstate commerce nor so closely related to the movement of interstate commerce as to be a part of it.

Upon consideration, we agree with the District Court that appellant was not engaged in commerce, that his activities were not in or so closely related to interstate commerce as to be a part of it, and did not come within the scope of the Act, for the reasons stated.in the opinion of the District Court. Tullis v. Shavin, etc., 230 F.Supp. 52 (E.D. Tenn.).

It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed. McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 87 L.Ed. 1538.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 616, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5209, 49 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-n-tullis-v-seamour-shavin-individually-and-dba-save-supply-company-ca6-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack