29 C.F.R. § 780.202

Subordination to farming operations is necessary for exemption

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

While section 3(f) speaks of practices performed “in conjunction with” as well as “incident to” farming operations, it would be an unreasonable construction of the Act to hold that all practices were to be regarded as agricultural if the person performing the practice did any farming, no matter how little, or resorted to tilling a small acreage for the purpose of qualifying for exemption (Ridgeway v. Warren, 60 F. Supp. 363 (M.D. Tenn.); in re Combs, 5 WH Cases 595, 10 Labor Cases 62,802 (M.D. Ga.)). To illustrate, where an employer owns several thousand acres of timberland on which he carries on lumbering operations and cultivates about 100 acres of farm land which are contiguous to such timberland, he would not be engaged in agriculture so far as his forestry or lumbering operations are concerned. In such case, the forestry or lumbering operations would clearly not be subordinate to the farming operations but rather the principal or a separate business of the “farmer.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004). · cites it 3× “6 Defendant’s forestry operations were not subordinate to its farming operations.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.