Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

R. A. Peacock, M. L. Coffer, and H. J. Wilson v. Lubbock Compress Company Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit1958Docket #326779
252 F.2d 892 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 5000 34 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 71,325 Legislation and Regulation Labor and Employment Law Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A court interpreted the word ‘and’ in a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption as ‘or.’ It held that an exemption for ‘ginning and compressing of cotton’ applied to a company doing only compressing, avoiding an absurd result since the two activities are never performed together.

Legal Significance: Establishes that courts may construe ‘and’ as ‘or’ in a statute to avoid an absurd result and effectuate legislative intent, particularly when a literal reading would render the provision meaningless based on industry realities known to the legislature.

R. A. Peacock, M. L. Coffer, and H. J. Wilson v. Lubbock Compress Company Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Three night watchmen sued their employer, Lubbock Compress Company, for overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The company, which was admittedly subject to the Act, had employed the men for 84-hour weeks without paying overtime. The company claimed it was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to § 207(c), which applies to employers engaged “in the ginning and compressing of cotton.” It was an undisputed fact that the defendant company was engaged exclusively in the business of compressing cotton and did not perform ginning operations. Furthermore, it was an acknowledged and undisputed fact within the cotton industry that ginning and compressing are entirely separate and distinct operations that are never carried on together by the same entity. The plaintiffs argued for a literal, conjunctive reading of the word “and,” which would mean the exemption did not apply. The defendant argued “and” should be construed as “or” to effectuate the statute’s purpose.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime exemption for employers engaged ‘in the ginning and compressing of cotton’ apply to an employer engaged exclusively in compressing, requiring the court to interpret the word ‘and’ as ‘or’?

Yes. The court held that the § 207(c) exemption applies to employers Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. D

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Did the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime exemption for employers engaged ‘in the ginning and compressing of cotton’ apply to an employer engaged exclusively in compressing, requiring the court to interpret the word ‘and’ as ‘or’?

Conclusion

This case is a key precedent for the 'absurdity doctrine' in statutory Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim venia

Legal Rule

In statutory construction, courts may construe the word 'and' to mean 'or' Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on ascertaining Congressional intent rather than adhering to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Issue: Whether the FLSA’s overtime exemption for “ginning and compressing of
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occae

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More