Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the FLSA’s broad definition of “employee” “cannot be interpreted so as to make a person whose work serves only his own interest an employee of another person who gives him aid and instruction.”
• noting that trainees did “not expedite the company business”
• “Accepting the unchallenged findings [of the district court] here that the railroads receive no ‘immediate advantage’ from any work done by the trainees, we hold that they are not employees within the Act’s meaning.”
• noting that “[without doubt'the Act covers trainees”
• “The Fair Labor Standards Act fixes the minimum wage that employers must pay all employees who work in activities covered by the Act.”
• “[I]n determining who are ‘employees’ under the [FLSA], . . . employer-employee classifications under other statutes are not of controlling significance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.
  First Circuit· 1946-04-29· cited 6×
• Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.
  D. Maine· 1945-06-18· cited 3×