Legal Opinion

Bull v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 27, 2005No. 01-56 CPublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

HEWITT, Judge.

Plaintiffs, who are approximately sixty canine enforcement officers (CEOs) now or formerly employed by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs or defendant), seek unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2000) (FLSA).1 Plaintiffs specifically allege in their six-count complaint that defendant failed to pay for six categories of overtime work: (1) “time worked ... transporting] and laundering ... training towels during off[-]duty time;” (2) “time worked ...…

2Cases cited89 opinions

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. Udall v. TallmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Bull v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
  2. Abbey v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Martin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
  4. Martin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2014
  5. Moreno v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008

38 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