Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Mitchell, Secretary Of Labor, v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co.

1955 • 350 U.S. 891 • Warren Court
In the case of Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor. The court held that employees who were engaged in crab meat processing at a plant located on navigable waters fell under federal jurisdiction and thus were entitled to wage and hour protections as provided by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The company had argued that its workers should be considered seamen exempt from these regulations because they...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1955
Docket: 44
350 U.S. 891
76 S. Ct. 148
100 L. Ed. 2d 784
1955 U.S. LEXIS 1421
Argued: Nov 10, 1955

Mitchell, Secretary Of Labor, v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co., 1955, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor. The court held that employees who were engaged in crab meat processing at a plant located on navigable waters fell under federal jurisdiction and thus were entitled to wage and hour protections as provided by Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The company had argued that its workers should be considered seamen exempt from these regulations because they worked over water. However, the court found this argument unconvincing since their work was not directly related to navigation or commerce but rather involved stationary tasks performed on land-based platforms extending over water. Therefore, it concluded that such employees are covered by FLSA's provisions ensuring minimum wages and overtime pay.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Mitchell v. Myrtle Grove Packing Co., Justice Frankfurter, joined by Justices Burton and Harlan, argued that the majority's decision to extend federal wage-and-hour laws to employees of a crabmeat processing plant was an overreach of judicial authority. They contended that Congress did not intend for these laws to apply so broadly when it passed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The dissenters believed this interpretation could potentially lead to absurd results where virtually any business activity could be construed as having some impact on interstate commerce and thus fall under federal jurisdiction. They emphasized that such decisions should be left up to Congress rather than being determined by courts' interpretations of legislative intent.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms