|
|
Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960)
Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc. No. 60 Argued January 11, 1960 Decided February 23, 1960 361 U.S. 388
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner sued respondent under § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for payment of overtime wages claimed under § 7. Respondent claimed exemption from the Act’s overtime requirements as a "retail or service establishment" under § 13(a)(2), as amended in 1949. Respondent conducts an interior decorating and custom furniture business, but also fabricates on the same premises plastic aircraft parts which it sells in interstate commerce to manufacturers which incorporate them into aircraft or parts thereof which they sell to others. Sales of such plastic parts account for more than 25% of respondent’s annual sales, and respondent introduced no evidence to prove that at least 75% of its sales were recognized in the industry as retail.
Held: Respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of § 13, and is not entitled to exemption thereunder. Pp. 389-394.
(a) That respondent’s manufacture of plastic parts may be considered a "sideline" from respondent’s viewpoint does not remove petitioner from coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act unless respondent’s activities fall within the specific exemptions enumerated in § 13 . P. 391.
(b) Since respondent, through its fabrication of such plastic parts, is making or processing the goods that it sells, it must comply with the requirements of § 13(a)(4), as well as § 13(a)(2), in order to be exempt. Pp. 392-393.
(c) Respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of § 13(a)(2), because sales of plastic parts accounted for more than 25% of its annual sales, and respondent introduced no evidence to prove that 75% of its sales were recognized in the industry as "retail." Pp. 393-394.
(d) The sale of parts to be incorporated into aircraft that were to be sold by the purchasers of such parts were sales for resale, and, since such sales exceeded 25% of respondent’s total sales, respondent failed to meet the requirement of § 13(a)(2) that 75% of its annual sales be "not for resale." P. 394.
250 F.2d 47, 252 F.2d 787, reversed and cause remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960) in 361 U.S. 388 361 U.S. 389. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QSMWUAI85JFBAHN.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960), in 361 U.S. 388, page 361 U.S. 389. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QSMWUAI85JFBAHN.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960). cited in 1960, 361 U.S. 388, pp.361 U.S. 389. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=QSMWUAI85JFBAHN.
|