Joshua Agsalud, Director of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii v. Pony Express Courier Corporation of America
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
Appellant Pony Express, a carrier regulated under the federal Motor Carrier Act, 49 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq., argues that the Motor Carrier Act preempts Hawaii Revised Stat. § 387-3(a) requiring employers to pay time-and-one-half for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
Three circuits have considered this contention and have rejected it. See Pettis Moving Co. v. Roberts, 784 F.2d 439 (2nd Cir.1986); Central Delivery Serv. v. Burch, 486 F.2d 1399 (4th Cir.1973), mem. aff'g 355 F.Supp. 954 (D.Md.); Williams v. W.M.A. Transit Co., 472 F.2d 1258 (D.C.Cir.1972). We agree for the reasons adequately…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kenneth C. Williams v. W. M. A. Transit CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Pettis Moving Co., Inc. v. Lillian Roberts, Industrial Commissioner of the State of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Central Delivery Service v. BurchDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1973
- Central Delivery Service v. BurchCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1973
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n v. AubryCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Butler v. DIRECTSAT USA, LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2011
- Overnite Transportation Co. v. Betty L. Tianti, Commissioner of Labor of the State of ConnecticutCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Department of Labor & Industries v. Common Carriers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1988
- Vega v. Yiyi Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.