U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1943

Barbe v. Cummins Const. Corp.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided November 9, 1943

138 F.2d 667; 1943 U.S. App. LEXIS 2626 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

George A. Mahone and Wylie L. Ritchey, both of Baltimore, Md., for appellant., Seymour O’Brien, of Baltimore, Md. (Miles & O’Brien, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. State of Lowa (8th Cir. 1974)
Duke v. Birchfield (United States District Court, Oklahoma Eastern 1963)
Hartmaier v. Long (Mo. 1951)
Miller v. Lummus Co. (Tex. App. 1948)
Blakeley v. Fresno Oil Co. (Tex. App. 1948)
Ritch v. Puget Sound Bridge & Dredging Co. (9th Cir. 1946)
Ballard v. Consolidated Steel Corporation (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1945)
Brue v. J. Rich Steers, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1945)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a case instituted under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The plaintiff was a cement finisher, working on the construction of buildings. His work consisted principally in leveling or pointing up concrete construction after the wooden frames had been removed therefrom. In some instances he assisted in pouring the concrete into wooden frames. It is contended that his work was “in commerce” within the meaning of. the act because the cement was brought from without the state and because he was sent into another state, in one instance, to work on the construction of a building. There-is nothing in either of these contentions. Plaintiff’s employment was in local construction work and he had no connection with the materials used by him until they had ceased to move in interstate commerce. For reasons adequately stated in the opinion below, he was not within the coverage of the act; and the judgment for the defendant must he affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.