Legal Opinion
Dager v. City of Phoenix
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided January 21, 2009No. 2:06-po-01412PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motions at Docket 113 and 118]
JOHN W. SEDWICK, District Judge.
I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 113, defendant City of Phoenix (“City” or “defendant”) moves for an order granting summary judgment in its favor and holding that time spent donning and doffing by Phoenix patrol officers is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201. At docket 118, plaintiffs David Dager, Greg Iiames, Danny Boyd, and others similarly situated (“plaintiffs”) cross-move for an order granting partial summary judgment in their favor and holding that time…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Christensen v. Harris CountySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bamonte v. City of MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2010
- Akpeneye v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2019
- Bamonte v. City of MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Bamonte v. City of MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010