William T. Rhude v. Jansen Construction Company, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

William T. Rhude v. Jansen Construction Company, Inc.

369 F.2d 806, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085, 54 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,859

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 1966

Docket23003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 369 F.2d 806 (William T. Rhude v. Jansen Construction Company, Inc.) 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

William T. Rhude v. Jansen Construction Company, Inc., 369 F.2d 806, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085, 54 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,859 (5th Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant Rhude complains of an adverse judgment rendered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in a suit brought by him for unpaid minimum wages alleged to be due under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. At the close of the appellant’s case the District Court ruled that there was no coverage because the appellee was not an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by the Act. The Court found that the undisputed evidence showed that the appellee was a local construction company and did not have two or more employees who handled, sold or otherwise worked on any goods or material shown to have moved in commerce, or were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, and that no two of appellee’s employees were engaged in commerce in any manner.

Our review of the record convinces us that no error was committed. The judgment is Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Appellant Rhude complains of an adverse judgment rendered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in a suit brought by him for unpaid minimum wages alleged to be due under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. At the close of the appellant’s case the District Court ruled that there was no coverage because the appellee was not an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as defined by the Act. The Court found that the undisputed evidence showed that the appellee was a local construction company and did not have two or more employees who handled, sold or otherwise worked on any goods or material shown to have moved in commerce, or were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, and that no two of appellee’s employees were engaged in commerce in any manner.

Our review of the record convinces us that no error was committed. The judgment is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 F.2d 806, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 4085, 54 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 31,859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-t-rhude-v-jansen-construction-company-inc-ca5-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack