Armour & Co. v. Wantock

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that United States Supreme Court opinions are to be read in the light of the facts of the case under discussion”
• holding that time firefighters spent “in playing cards and other amusements, or in idleness” while on call at the fire station was working time
• holding that work is compensable if it is “predominantly for the employer’s benefit” and noting that “an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing”
• holding that work is compensable if it is “predominantly for the employer’s benefit” and noting that “an employer, if he chooses, may hire a man to do nothing”
• emphasizing that the requirement of exertion is contextual and finding that idle time spent by fireguards subject to call is working time
• stating that “[rjeadiness to serve may be hired, quite as much as service itself’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).