Legal Opinion

Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 1, 1945PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum Per Curiam.

The defendant was not a service establishment within the exemption of clause (2) of subdivision (a) of section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (IT. S. Code, tit. 29, § 213, subd. [a], clause [2]) and plaintiff was engaged in an occupation necessary to the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of subdivision (a) *125of section 7 of the Act (U. S. Code, tit. 29, § 207, subd. [a]). (Philips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co., 55 F. Supp. 238, affd. sub. nom. Phillips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co., 149 F. 2d 416.)

The judgment should be…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Phillips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  2. Philips v. Star Overall Dry Cleaning Laundry Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1944

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Koerner v. Associated Linen Laundry Suppliers, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  2. Barb v. Manhattan Laundries, Inc.City of New York Municipal Court · 1946
  3. Heitmuller v. BerkowCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API