Skip to main content

Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, Inc.

Citations

  • 169 P.3d 473

How courts have described this case

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

  • classifying judgments for back wages as liquidated and therefore eligible for prejudgment interest (citing Hansen v . Rothaus, 107 Wash.2d 468 , 472, 730 P.2d 662 (1986) )
  • “[W]e must evaluate the extent to which Brink’s restricts Technicians’ personal activities and controls Technicians’ time to determine whether Technicians are ‘on duty’____”
  • “[W]e must evaluate the extent to which Brink’s restricts Technicians’ personal activities and controls Technicians’ time to determine whether Technicians are ‘on duty’ ....”
  • court determined that claims under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), chapter 49.46 RCW, accrue interest under RCW 4.56.110(4
  • “Unlike ordinary commuters who regularly run errands during their commutes and carry additional passengers, Brink’s policy prohibits Technicians from engaging in personal activities while driving the Brink’s trucks.”
  • “In addition to the restrictions on Technicians’ drive time, Technicians remain ‘on duty5 during the drive. Supervisors may redirect Technicians under the HDP while en route to and from their homes to assist with other jobs or answer service calls.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Owens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Stevens v. Brink's Home Security, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share 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.