United States ex rel. Zabadlija v. Garfinkel

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding utility technicians’ time spent performing routine company-vehicle inspections were preliminary activities incidental to commute and therefore not compensable
• finding time spent quickly inspecting company vehicle and removing and replacing hazard cones from around the vehicle incidental to commute
• finding time spent quickly inspecting company vehicle and removing and replacing hazard cones from around the vehicle incidental to commute
• applying the Rutti holding to determine that two broadband technicians could not recover for commuting in a company car absent a contract or custom to the contrary
• utilizing discovery material to provide background on the various activities 6 One of the only cases cited by Defendant that was decided as a motion to dismiss is Luster v. AWP, Inc., No. 16- cv-02613, 2020 WL 6119418 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2020

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).