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. King Packing Co.

• 1955 • 350 U.S. 260 • Warren Court
In the case of Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. King Packing Co., 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor. The issue at hand was whether or not time spent by meatpackers sharpening their knives during work hours should be considered as part of their regular working hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court held that since knife-sharpening is an integral and indispensable part to performing productive work for which workers are employed, it must be...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: 39
350 U.S. 260
76 S. Ct. 337
100 L. Ed. 2d 282
1956 U.S. LEXIS 1744
Argued: Nov 16, 1955

Mitchell, Secretary Of Labor, v. King 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. King Packing Co., 1955, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor. The issue at hand was whether or not time spent by meatpackers sharpening their knives during work hours should be considered as part of their regular working hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court held that since knife-sharpening is an integral and indispensable part to performing productive work for which workers are employed, it must be counted as work time subject to FLSA provisions. This decision set a precedent for considering preparatory activities essential to primary tasks as compensable working time.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Mitchell v. King Packing Co., Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "waiting time" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). He argued that, according to Department of Labor regulations and previous court rulings, waiting time should be considered compensable work hours if it is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit. In this case, he believed that meatpackers' knife-sharpening activities were integral and indispensable to their principal activities; therefore, they should be compensated for this time. The justice also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on workers’ rights due to a narrow interpretation of FLSA provisions by courts or employers.

Opinion written by Justice EWarren
Decided: Jan 30, 1956
PDF viewer is not available.
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