The Garin Co.

8 Cited authorities

Farmers Irrigation Co. v. McComb
337 U.S. 755 (1949) Cited 145 times 2 Legal Analyses
In Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the company's canals were activities "[c]learly... not done on a farm."
Mitchell v. Budd
350 U.S. 473 (1956) Cited 31 times
Holding a process that results in changes to the natural state of the product is more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture
Bowie v. Gonzalez
117 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1941) Cited 96 times
In Bowie v. Gonzalez, 1 Cir., 117 F.2d 11, 20, the Circuit Court of Appeals held "dead" season employees who were "engaged in the repair and maintenance of the milling and transportation facilities" of a company engaged in gathering and refining sugar cane, were covered by the Act.
Mitchell v. Huntsville Wholesale Nurseries
267 F.2d 286 (5th Cir. 1959) Cited 28 times
Holding that the processing by a farmer of commodities of other farmers is incidental to, or in conjunction with, the farming operations of those other farmers and therefore not within the definition of agriculture
Mitchell v. Hunt
263 F.2d 913 (5th Cir. 1959) Cited 21 times
Considering the FLSA's exemption for agricultural employees and stating: "To bring himself within the exception, the appellee must prove that not merely some but substantially all of the farming operations to which the practices are incident were operations of the appellee farmer himself."
Calaf v. Gonzalez
127 F.2d 934 (1st Cir. 1942) Cited 35 times
No. 3748. May 8, 1942. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for Puerto Rico; Cooper, Judge. Action by Justo Gonzalez, Jr., and others against Jaime Calaf Collazo and others to recover wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, §§ 6, 16, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 216. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Nelson Gammans, of New York City (R. Rivera Zayas, Joaquin Velilla, and Orlando J. Antonsanti, all of San Juan, P.R., on the brief),
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Olaa Sugar Co.
242 F.2d 714 (9th Cir. 1957) Cited 13 times
No. 15143. March 12, 1957. Theophil C. Kammholz, Gen. Counsel, Stephen Leonard, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel and Rosanna Blake, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Arthur G. Smith, Smith, Wild, Beebe Cades, J. Edward Collins, James A. King, Bouslog Symonds, Honolulu, Hawaii, and George Andersen, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and STEPHENS and POPE, Circuit Judges. POPE, Circuit Judge. Before us is the petition
Sweetlake Land and Oil Company v. N.L.R.B
334 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 6 times
In Sweetlake Land Oil Co., the court held that the agricultural exemption did not apply when 20% of the rice processed belonged to tenant farmers and the activity of drying the rice was not a part of the employer's farming operation.

The Garin Co.

8 Cited authorities

In Farmers Reservoir, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that "the physical operation, control and maintenance" of "canals, reservoirs, and headgates" for a company that stored water and distributed it to farms through the company's canals were activities "[c]learly... not done on a farm."

Holding a process that results in changes to the natural state of the product is more akin to manufacturing than to agriculture

In Bowie v. Gonzalez, 1 Cir., 117 F.2d 11, 20, the Circuit Court of Appeals held "dead" season employees who were "engaged in the repair and maintenance of the milling and transportation facilities" of a company engaged in gathering and refining sugar cane, were covered by the Act.

Holding that the processing by a farmer of commodities of other farmers is incidental to, or in conjunction with, the farming operations of those other farmers and therefore not within the definition of agriculture

Considering the FLSA's exemption for agricultural employees and stating: "To bring himself within the exception, the appellee must prove that not merely some but substantially all of the farming operations to which the practices are incident were operations of the appellee farmer himself."

In Sweetlake Land Oil Co., the court held that the agricultural exemption did not apply when 20% of the rice processed belonged to tenant farmers and the activity of drying the rice was not a part of the employer's farming operation.