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

Walling, Administrator Of The Wage And Hour Division, U.s. Department Of Labor, v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.

• 1944 • 323 U.S. 37 • Stone Court
In the 1944 case Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendant, oil drilling company Helmerich & Payne, argued that their employees were not entitled to overtime because they worked in an industry exempt from FLSA regulations. However, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division Walling contended that this exemption did not apply as it was intended for industries producing goods rather...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 Stone Court
Term: 1944
Docket: 27
323 U.S. 37
65 S. Ct. 11
89 L. Ed. 29
1944 U.S. LEXIS 1261
Argued: Oct 17, 1944

Walling, Administrator Of The Wage And Hour Division, U.s. Department Of Labor, v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1944 case Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The defendant, oil drilling company Helmerich & Payne, argued that their employees were not entitled to overtime because they worked in an industry exempt from FLSA regulations. However, Administrator of Wage and Hour Division Walling contended that this exemption did not apply as it was intended for industries producing goods rather than services like oil drilling. The court sided with Walling's interpretation of the law and held that workers involved in production are covered by FLSA protections regardless if their work is classified as "goods" or "services". Therefore, Helmerich & Payne’s employees were indeed eligible for overtime pay according to federal labor laws.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was too broad and could potentially lead to unintended consequences. The dissent contended that not all activities performed by employees before or after their regular working hours should be considered as compensable work time under FLSA. They believed this would place an undue burden on employers who might have to pay for non-productive time such as travel or preparation activities which are not directly related to job performance. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse where workers may intentionally prolong these preliminary tasks in order to earn extra wages without actually contributing more towards productive work output.

Opinion written by Justice FMurphy
Decided: Nov 06, 1944
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