Supreme Court· 2/17/1947

Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.

Citations

330 U.S. 148
67 S. Ct. 639
91 L. Ed. 809
1947 U.S. LEXIS 2957

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).

Judges: Frankfurter, Jackson, Black

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Walling v. Portland Terminal Co.

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.