Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

215 F.2d 101

Docket No. 13766.

Tankard v. Mitchell

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Aug. 11, 1954.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1954-08-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1954

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)

Relies on Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall · Culver v. Bell & Loffland, Inc. · In re Casaudoumecq

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1954-08-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert M. Devitt, Long Beach, Cal., for appellants.

¶2Stuart Rothman, Sol., Jeter S. Ray, Acting Sol., Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., William A. Lowe, Harold S. Saxe, Washington, D. C., Kenneth C. Robertson, Attys., Dept, of Labor, San Francisco, Cal., George E. Duemler, Atty., Dept, of Labor, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

¶3Before STEPHENS and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges, and WALSH, District Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The ultimate question on this appeal is whether Tankard’s employees come within Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, c. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as amended in 1949 by c. 736, 63 Stat. 910, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. as to payment for overtime. That question turns upon whether Tankard knew or in reason should have known that a substantial quantity of scrap metal and paper sold by Tankard locally was purchased for and was shipped in interstate commerce. Warren-Bradshaw Drilling Co. v. Hall, 317 U.S. 88, 63 S.Ct. 125, 87 L.Ed. 83; Culver v. Bell & Loffland, 9 Cir., 146 F.2d 29.

¶6There is ample evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding in the affirmative on the latter question.

¶7Affirmed.

/215/f2d/101 · .json · Public domain