Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Ector Water Co., Appellant, v. Kyle L. Easley, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. - 325 F.2d 91
Dec. 6, 1963
O. A. Fountain, Fleming A. Waters, Dallas, Tex., for appellant.
Lloyd Scurlock and Rawlings, Sayers, Scurlock & Eidson, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before BROWN, WISDOM and BELL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended 29 U.S.C.A. 201-219. The Employer is a water supply company which furnishes water for industrial use to companies engaged in the production of goods for commerce. The successful Employee was a pump mechanic whose duties included handling of telephone calls, special requests, emergencies, and the like during 'off-duty' times. The jury verdict upon which the judgment appealed from is based is amply supported by the evidence. This applies equally to the issue of required availability during times after completion of the Employee's regular tour of duty and also to the total overtime implied by the dollar and cent verdict. We have carefully considered the other specifications of error and find all to be without merit. In the circumstances of this case and also the appeal, the attorney's fee allowed by the trial court is reasonably adequate compensation so no additional sum need be awarded for services on the appeal.
Affirmed.