Tenth Circuit· 9/12/2006
Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co.
Citations
- 462 F.3d 1274
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “[p]ursuant to the Portal- to-Portal Act, employers are not required to compensate their employees for time spent ‘traveling to and from’ the place of their principal activities”
- explaining employers “are not required to compensate employees for time spent commuting between home and their workplace, or for any activities that are ‘preliminary to or postliminary to’ their principal activities”
- “[A] plaintiff’s attempt to add a new claim to the pretrial order [is] the equivalent of asking leave to amend his complaint[.]” (quotation omitted)
- “A restriction imposed on the manner in which the plaintiffs can travel to and from their workplace is relevant only if it shows that their travel time was integral and indispensable to their principal activities.”
- “[U]nless the plaintiffs’ travel was an integral and indispensable part of their principal activities because they were traveling together with their crew, then the alleged carpooling requirement does not transform the plaintiffs’ travel time into compensable work hours.”
- “While the plaintiffs occasionally carried equipment and paperwork on behalf of the tool pusher, this was a rare occurrence, and the crews did it as a favor to the tool pusher rather than as an ordinary part of their job.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lucero, Brorby, McConnell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
37 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction, Inc.Eleventh Circuit· 2007-05-30· cited 252×
- Cohen v. LongshoreTenth Circuit· 2010-10-19· cited 204×
- Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Invs., Ltd.Tenth Circuit· 2018-12-18· cited 174×
- Singh v. City of New YorkSecond Circuit· 2008-04-29· cited 110×
- Rutti v. Lojack Corp., Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2010-03-02· cited 65×
- Zisumbo v. Ogden Regional Medical CenterTenth Circuit· 2015-09-04· cited 61×
- De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc.Third Circuit· 2007-09-06· cited 48×
- Landry v. Swire Oilfield Services, L.L.C.D. New Mexico· 2017-05-02· cited 45×
- Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc.W.D. Wisconsin· 2007-12-31· cited 32×
- Little v. Technical Specialty Products, LLCE.D. Texas· 2013-04-15· cited 30×
- Jordan v. IBP, Inc.M.D. Tennessee· 2008-03-31· cited 28×
- Butler v. DirectSat USA, LLCD. Maryland· 2014-10-16· cited 27×
- Castaneda v. JBS USA, LLCTenth Circuit· 2016-03-31· cited 19×
- Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.D. Kansas· 2012-08-21· cited 19×
- Ahle v. Veracity Research Co.D. Minnesota· 2010-08-25· cited 18×
- Garcia v. Tyson Foods, Inc.D. Kansas· 2007-02-16· cited 16×
- Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc.E.D. Illinois· 2017-11-29· cited 14×
- Johnson v. RGIS Inventory SpecialistsE.D. Texas· 2007-05-29· cited 11×
- Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.D. Utah· 2015-10-21· cited 10×
- Corman v. JWS of N.M., Inc.D. New Mexico· 2018-11-14· cited 10×
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court· 1946-10-14· cited 2,009×
- Robert H. E. Frank, Jerry D. Mooberry, Tyrone G. Moreno v. U.S. West, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1993-08-24· cited 843×
- Minter v. Prime Equipment Co.Tenth Circuit· 2006-06-29· cited 811×
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123Supreme Court· 1944-05-29· cited 713×
- IBP, Inc. v. AlvarezSupreme Court· 2005-11-08· cited 567×
- Steiner v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1956-01-30· cited 389×
- Calderon v. Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation ServicesTenth Circuit· 1999-07-06· cited 313×
- Ted L. Lindow v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1984-07-27· cited 224×
- Weese v. SchukmanTenth Circuit· 1996-10-15· cited 170×
- Mary P. Durham v. Xerox Corporation, a New York Corporation Doing Business in the State of OklahomaTenth Circuit· 1994-02-24· cited 167×
- Robert B. Reich, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. New York City Transit Authority, a CorporationSecond Circuit· 1995-01-17· cited 148×
- John T. Dunlop, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. City Electric, Inc., and Paul R. RolandFifth Circuit· 1976-02-18· cited 100×
- William Russell Aiken v. City of Memphis, TennesseeSixth Circuit· 1999-09-07· cited 90×
- Black v. M & W Gear CompanyTenth Circuit· 2001-11-07· cited 73×
- Maria Vega, Eva Trevino, on Behalf of Herself and as Next Friend of Pedro Trevino v. John W. GasperFifth Circuit· 1994-11-10· cited 72×
- United Transportation Union Local 1745 v. City of AlbuquerqueTenth Circuit· 1999-05-28· cited 53×
- Fred Crenshaw v. Quarles Drilling CorporationTenth Circuit· 1986-08-20· cited 46×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,202 Sundstrand Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Standard Kollsman Industries, Inc., an Illinois CorporationSeventh Circuit· 1973-11-08· cited 44×
- D a & S Oil Well Servicing, Inc., a Corporation v. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of LaborTenth Circuit· 1958-12-19· cited 35×
- Reich v. Ibp, Inc.Tenth Circuit· 1994-10-25· cited 24×
Other cases named Smith v. Aztec Well Servicing Co.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.