Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass'n v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 17 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 13364,13365.,13364 |
| Citation | 158 F.2d 698 |
| Parties | MEEKER COOPERATIVE LIGHT & POWER ASS'N v. PHILLIPS et al. RENVILLE-SIBLEY COOPERATIVE POWER ASS'N v. WALLING. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Leo J. Lauerman, of Olivia, Minn. (Lauerman & Pfeiffer, of Olivia, Minn., Patrick J. Casey, of Litchfield, Minn., and Harold Levander, of South St. Paul, Minn., on the brief), for appellants.
Morton Liftin, Asst. Sol. U. S. Dept. of Labor, of Washington, D. C. (William S. Tyson, Sol., of Washington, D. C., James M. Miller, Regional Atty., of Minneapolis, Minn., and Miss Helen Grundstein, of Washington, D. C., Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, on the brief), for appellee L. Metcalfe Walling, Administrator, etc.
Samuel I. Sigal, of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee George P. Phillips, as Agent, etc.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The question presented in both of the cases in which these appeals have been taken is whether or not the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., applied to the employees of the Cooperative Light and Power Associations, appellants. On the trial of the two cases together without a jury the court found from the evidence and concluded that the employees were engaged both in interstate commerce and in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Act, and judgments were entered against the associations for overtime pay, costs and attorneys' fees to the employees, and injunction issued in favor of Walling, Administrator. The opinion of the trial court is reported 63 F.Supp. 733. It is conceded here that the judgments were in proper form if the Act was applicable but appellants contend that it was not.
There was no substantial conflict in the evidence which established the organization, objects, powers and business of the cooperatives and the duties and detailed activities of the employees, all of which are clearly and accurately set forth in the findings and accompanying opinion of the trial court. The inferences, the course of reasoning and the precedents leading to the court's conclusions are also stated in that opinion, and we need only to discuss the points relied on by appellants for reversal of the judgments.
1. Their first point is that the cooperatives are not "public utilities" and that the trial court erroneously assumed them to be public utilities and reached erroneous conclusions from that assumption. They cite Garkane Power Co. v. Public Service Commission, 98 Utah 466, 100 P.2d 571, 132 A.L.R. 1490, to the effect that the cooperative in that case was not a "public utility" within the jurisdiction of the Utah Public Service Commission limited by the Utah statute to "public utilities." But consideration of the trial court's findings, conclusions and opinion convinces that the trial court correctly appraised the nature and activities of the co-operatives in relation to the question in the case and that this contention of appellants may not be sustained.
2. It is contended under the second, third and fourth points that neither the business carried on by the office employees nor the work done by the outside employees...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wirtz v. Ray Smith Transport Company
...Co., 294 F.2d 186, 189-90 (5th Cir. 1961); Mitchell v. Mercer Water Co., 208 F.2d 900 (3d Cir. 1953); Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass'n v. Phillips, 158 F.2d 698, 699 (8th Cir. 1946); West Ky. Coal Co. v. Walling, 153 F.2d 582, 584 (6th Cir. 1946). 17 See Alstate Constr. Co. v. Durkin,......
-
McComb v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co.
...863, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 764, 65 S.Ct. 117, 89 L.Ed. 611; Walling v. Friend, 8 Cir., 156 F.2d 429; Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass'n v. Phillips, 8 Cir., 158 F.2d 698; McComb v. Super-A Fertilizer Works, 1 Cir., 165 F.2d We come now to the question whether the employees, though ......
-
Hodgson v. Travis Edwards, Inc.
...quantities" of stocks, bonds, checks, and commercial paper shipped to and from points out of state); Meeker Cooperative Light and Power Ass'n v. Phillips, 158 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1946) (electric cooperative provided power upon which interstate businesses 4 10 East 40th Street Bldg., Inc. v. ......
-
Chambers Construction Company v. Mitchell
...153 F.2d 385; Phillips v. Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass\'n, D.C.Minn., 63 F.Supp. 733, affirmed, Meeker Cooperative Light & Power Ass\'n v. Phillips, 8 Cir., 158 F.2d 698." Concerning the employees in the home office and the timekeepers out of state, appellants argue that their activ......
-
29 C.F.R. § 780.810 Employees Not "Engaged In" Ginning
...631, 16 WH Cases 663; Mitchell v. Stinson, 217 F. 2d 210; Phillips v. Meeker Cooperative Light and Power Ass'n 63 F. Supp. 743, affirmed 158 F. 2d 698; Jenkins v. Durkin, 208 F. 2d 941; Heaburg v. Independent Oil Mill, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 751; Abram v. San Joaquin Cotton Oil Co., 46 F. Supp. ......
-
29 C.F.R. § 776.20 "Goods."
...Cases 893 (D. Colo.), 15 Labor Cases (CCH) par. 60,864. 21 Phillips v. Meeker Coop. Light & Power Asso., 63 F. Supp. 733, affirmed in 158 F. 2d 698 (C.A. Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 48 F. Supp. 692 (N.D. Ill.) See also Rausch v. Wolf, 72 F. Supp. 658 (N.D. Ill). There are other c......
-
29 C.F.R. § 776.19 Employees of Independent Employers Meeting Needs of Producers For Commerce
...servicing electric motors, generators, and equipment for commercial and industrial firms); Meeker Coop. Light & Power Assn. v. Phillips, 158 F. 2d 698 (C.A. 8) (outside employees and employees of light and power company serving producers); Walling v. New Orleans Private Patrol Service, 57 F......