Isaac Lee v. Coahoma County, Mississippi
Isaac LEE, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COAHOMA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
ORDER:
The motion of defendants to recall the mandate heretofore issued in this case for the purpose of correcting a typographical error in the opinion reported at Lee v. Coahoma County, Miss., 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1991), is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the mandate previously issued in this ease is recalled, that the citation in footnote 2 of the *1069 Court’s opinion be changed from 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 to 29 C.F.R. § 553.233 , so that the footnote will read as follows:
In determining each deputy’s hourly wage in a given work period, the district court should multiply the deputy’s monthly salary by twelve to get a yearly salary, including a two week paid vacation to which each deputy is entitled. The district court should then divide the yearly salary by the number of work periods in a year. The court should then divide the sum by the number of regular hours which may be worked in that work period according to 29 C.F.R. § 553.233 . This will result in a determination of each deputy’s appropriate hourly wage in the work period determined by the district court, and that the mandate be reissued immediately as herein amended.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and for assessment of fees and costs be DENIED, and that this Order be published.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a Mississippi sheriff was an "employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act)
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.