LUNDGREN

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Paulina Castillo v. Ercell Givens, 704 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1983)
  …is employees.” (citing Mitchell v. Reynolds, 125 F.Supp. 337, 340 (W.D.Ark.1954)). Furthermore, an employer must decide at his peril which employees are covered by the Act. George Lawley & Son Corp. v. South, 140 F. 2d 439 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 746, 64 S.Ct. 1156, 88 L.Ed. 1578 (1944). In Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946), the Supreme Court specified the burden of proof in cases where the employer has failed to maintain the records…
• Legg v. Rock Prods. Mfg. Corp., 309 F.2d 172 (10th Cir. 1962)
  …1.2. . Prior to February 2, 1959, the amount was $100 per week. . 29 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 541.1. . See regulation appearing at 29 U.S.C.A. Appendix § 516.3. . George Lawley & Son Corporation v. South, 1 Cir., 140 F. 2d 439, 442, certio-rari denied 322 U.S. 746, 64 S.Ct. 1156, 88 L.Ed. 1578. . See Jones v. Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, D.C.Md., 75 F.Supp. 86, 93. . Burke v. Lecrone-Benedict Ways, D.C. Mich., 63 F.Supp. 883, 885. . Rule 52(a) F.R.Civ.P.; United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S…
• Caserta v. Home Lines Agency, Inc., 273 F.2d 943 (2d Cir. 1959)
  …payment, to the employee. The employer “at its peril, * * * had to keep track of the amount of overtime worked by those of its employees in fact within the Act.” George Lawley & Son Corp. v. South, 1 Cir., 140 F. 2d 439, 442, certiorari denied 1944, 322 U.S. 746, 64 S.Ct. 1156, 88 L.Ed. 1578. Appellant’s argument of estoppel ignores that this case lies in an area where agreements and other acts that would normally have controlling legal significance are overcome by Congressional policy. An agreement by app…