James D. Hodgson v. Bidwell A. Jones, 434 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
James D. Hodgson v. Bidwell A. Jones, 434 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 849 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1062 Sufficient basis for calculating hours worked2 citing cases
  • Nieddu v. Lifetime Fitness, Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 849 (S.D. Tex. 2014).published
    The evidence of the hours worked does not have to be “perfectly accurate,” but must provide “a sufficient basis to calculate the number of hours worked.... ” Marshall v. Mammas Fried Chicken, Inc., 590 F.2d 598, 599 (5th Cir.1979) (per cur…
  • Robert G. Lecompte v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 780 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1986).published
    Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 687 , 66 S.Ct. 1187, 1192 , 90 L.Ed.2d 1515 (1946); Hodgson v. Jones, 434 F.2d 1061, 1062 (5th Cir.1970).
At page 1061 Sufficient evidence for calculating hours worked1 citing case
  • Colindres v. Quietflex Mfg., 427 F. Supp. 2d 737 (S.D. Tex. 2006).published
    Evidence ■ of hours *753 worked need not be “perfectly accurate” as long as it provides “a sufficient basis to calculate the number of hours worked by each employee.” Marshall v. Mammas Fried Chicken, Inc., 590 F.2d 598, 598 (5th Cir.1979)…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James D. HODGSON, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bidwell A. JONES, Individually, and D/B/A B. A. Jones Casing Crew, Defendant-Appellee
28896.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 24, 1970.
Published opinion
434 F.2d 1061
1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6267
Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Sol., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Joe D. Sparks, Atlanta, Ga., Laurence H. Silberman, Sol. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Associate Sol., Carin Ann Clauss, Le Roy M. Jahn, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., Swep S. Taylor, Jr., Jackson, Miss., W. Vol Jones, Waynesboro, Miss., for defendant-appellee.
Rives, Wisdom, God-Bold.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an action by the Secretary of Labor under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act [1] to enjoin the defendant employer from violating the Act’s overtime and record keeping provisions with respect to his oil field employees and to restrain the withholding of funds due the employees in unpaid overtime compensation. The District Court enjoined the defendant from further violations, and defendant concedes the power of the court to enter that order and does not attack its correctness.

However, the District Court also held that, although the employer had erroneously calculated overtime, the government had not proved the amount due each employee for such overtime and that the evidence before the court was insufficient for such calculation to be made, and denied relief to the employees for back pay due for overtime. This was error. E.g., Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed.,1515 (1945); Mitchell v. Riley, 296 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1961); Mitchell v. Mitchell Truck Line, Inc., 286 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1961). See also: Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424-425, 65 S.Ct. 1242, 89 L.Ed. 1705, 1710 (1944). The case is remanded to the District Court for establishment of the amount due each employee and entry of an order restraining the employer from withholding the back wages thus calculated to be due.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.