Swisher v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The provisions of law are plain and mandatory in requiring that all laborers and mechanics employed by the United States or its contractors on public work such as that carried on at Nitro be allowed overtime pay for all time employed in excess of eight hours per day. Plaintiff was employed at Nitro far in excess of eight hours per day.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: The provisions of law are plain and mandatory in requiring that all laborers and mechanics employed by the United States or its contractors on public work such as that carried on at Nitro be allowed overtime pay for all time employed in excess of eight hours per day. Plaintiff was employed at Nitro far in excess of eight hours per day. Was his employment that of a “laborer or mechanic ” ? Bouvier’s Law Dictionary classifies the term “laborer” as denoting “ One who performs with his own hands the contract he made with his employer {Appeal of Beiders, 46…
1Opinion of the CourtDowNEV, Judge
The plaintiff seeks to recover for services in excess of eight hours per day while employed as a member of the fire department maintained at the United States explosive plant at Nitro, West Virginia. He predicates his right of action on the act of Congress approved March 3, 1913, 37 Stat. *131726, the act of March 4, 1917, 39 Stat. 1192, and Executive orders of March 24 and April 28, 1917, respectively, by which the President, by authority of the act of March 4, 1917, declared the existence of an extraordinary emergency and directed that when necessary for purposes of national defense…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Norris v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Nicholas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- United States v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- United States v. DriscollSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Grisell v. Noel Bros. Flour, Feed Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- City of Phoenix v. YatesArizona Supreme Court · 1949
- No., Colorado Attorney General Reports1984