Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. King Packing Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January 30, 1956No. 39PublishedCited by 134 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Warren

This case like Steiner v. Mitchell, ante, p. 247, raises an issue of coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, with respect to work performed before or after the direct or productive labor for which the worker is primarily paid.

The District Court denied to the Secretary of Labor an injunction to enforce compliance with the Act, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 216 F. 2d 618.

The court below recognized a conflict with Steiner, 1 and, although holding that Section 4 controls the situation here, determined, contrary to the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Steiner v. Mitchell, Secretary of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1954
  2. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. King Packing Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954

3Cited by134 opinions

  1. Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Nancy Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
  3. Alvarez v. IBP, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
  4. In Re RobertsUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · 1985
  5. Donnelly v. Greenburgh Central School District No. 7Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012

129 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API