BOUTELL ET AL.

v.

WALLING, ADMINISTRATOR

Citator

Cited By

• Roland Elec. Co. v. Walling, 326 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1946)
  …ing of the question now presented; Guess v. Montague, 140 F. 2d 500; Bracey v. Luray, 138 F. 2d 8; with Lonas v. National Linen Corp., 136 F. 2d 433, cert. denied, 320 U. S. 785; Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 145 F. 2d 163, cert. granted, 325 U. S. 849. The dependence of the commercial and industrial customers of the petitioner upon such sales and services is well presented in the petitioner’s advertising circular: “It costs more to operate a faulty motor than to buy a new one. But it isn’t nece…
• Martino v. Mich. Window Cleaning Co., 327 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1946)
  …mmary judgment, made several findings of law, ordered that the petitioners recover nothing and dismissed the complaint. 51 F. Supp. 505. The circuit court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. 145 F. 2d 163. This Court has granted a writ of certiorari, 325 U. S. 849, because of divergence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals as to the interpretation of § 13 (a) (2), and now decides this cáse in favor of petitioners, upon principles stated in Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, supra. The respondent, a…
• W. Ky. Coal Co. v. Walling, 153 F.2d 582 (6th Cir. 1946)
  …ne in a majority of the appellant’s sales from the Memphis outlet, the District Court correctly concluded that it is not a retail establishment and not exempted by the Act. While the decision of the Supreme Court in Roland Electrical Co. v. Walling, 325 U.S. 849, 65 S.Ct. 1566, covers the question whether certain employees were exempted from the Act on the ground that they worked for a “service establishment,” within the meaning of § 13(a) (2), the interpretation of the word “retail” therein given supports…