Legal Opinion

Darrah v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided May 16, 1995No. 93-0353-CV-W-3PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ELMO B. HUNTER, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff’s Complaint basically alleges that Defendant (Plaintiff’s employer) violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by failing to pay him for time during which he was “on call.”

I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall be rendered if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  5. Armour & Co. v. WantockSupreme Court of the United States · 1944

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Spencer v. Hyde CountyDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1997
  2. Brekke v. City of BlackduckDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1997
  3. Dagan v. Jewish Community Housing for ElderlyMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1998
  4. Marti v. Grey Eagle Distributors, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1996
  5. Dickhaut v. MADISON COUNTY, IOWADistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API