Legal Opinion
Charles v. Burton
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided March 12, 1999No. 96-9212PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Per curiam
The entire panel concurs in Parts I, II, and Part IV which discusses whether the appel-lees “utilized” Wilner Luxama’s services, and Part V which holds that appellees John and Felix Burton may be held liable for actual damages for their failure to verify Luxama’s registration under 29 U.S.C. § 1842. Judge Roney dissents from Part III, which holds that the Burtons were joint employers and therefore statutorily required to carry insurance or a liability bond.
In this case involving the Agricultural Workers Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1872 (1994) (AWPA), fifteen migrant farm workers…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Rutherford Food Corp. v. McCombSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Goldberg v. Whitaker House Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Michael Lauritzen and Marilyn Lauritzen, Individually and Doing Business as Lauritzen FarmsCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Sendhabhai Patel v. Dr. Alex Wargo, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Malacara v. GarberCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
- Ln Management, LLC Series 5664 v. Jpmorgan Chase BankCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Leandre Layton v. DHL Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
- Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion International Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
- Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.District Court, W.D. Texas · 1999
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.