Case Citator › Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123

Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
321 U.S. 590
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
1948
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123 was superseded by statute on compensation for required travel to and from the work site. All 40 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

Fisch v. General Motors Corporation held that the Portal-to-Portal Act barred claims formerly supported by Muscoda, as listed below. Later courts continued to use Muscoda's general definition of work and its reading of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

40 later cases cite Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123; 40 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by statute

  • The Sixth Circuit held that the Portal-to-Portal Act barred employees' existing claims for activities that had been compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act as construed in Muscoda.

    Fisch v. General Motors Corporation · Sixth Circuit · filed

    The Portal-to-Portal Act caused a different situation to be presented. ... It is obvious that if subsections (a) and (d) of Section 2, Part II, are valid, plaintiffs' claims are precluded. Sec. 2(a) nullifies employer liability and Sec. 2(d) withdraws the jurisdiction of the court to act on them. ... They were regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act as construed in Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local, 321 U.S. 590, 64 S.Ct. 698, 88 L.Ed. 949, 152 A.L.R. 1014; Jewell Ridge Coal Corporation v. Local No. 6167, 325 U.S. 161, 65 S. Ct. 1063, 89 L.Ed. 1534, and especially by *271 the Mount Clemens decision. Plaintiffs could not expect that their status or rights would remain unchanged through changing circumstances and conditions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123 and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace