Connection lost
Server error
SKIDMORE v. SWIFT & CO. Case Brief
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
tl;dr: The Court held that agency interpretations lacking the force of law are not controlling but are entitled to judicial deference based on their power to persuade. It applied this standard to an FLSA dispute over whether firefighters’ on-call “waiting time” is compensable work.
Legal Significance: Established the foundational “Skidmore deference” standard, where the weight given to an agency’s non-binding interpretation depends on its thoroughness, reasoning, consistency, and overall persuasiveness, rather than on a formal grant of authority.
SKIDMORE v. SWIFT & CO. 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
Seven employees of Swift & Co. sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime pay. Their employment agreement required them to remain on-call in a company-provided fire hall for several nights per week after their regular shifts. During this on-call time, they were largely free to sleep or engage in personal recreation but had to be available to respond to infrequent alarms, for which they received a small, separate payment. The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, the agency charged with enforcing the FLSA, had issued interpretive bulletins suggesting a flexible, case-by-case approach to determining whether such “waiting time” constituted compensable “working time.” The Administrator’s amicus brief argued that, under his interpretation, the employees’ sleeping and eating time should be excluded, but other on-call time should be included. The lower courts denied the employees’ claim, holding as a matter of law that the on-call waiting time was not work and did not give significant weight to the Administrator’s interpretation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What level of deference must a court give to an administrative agency’s interpretive rulings that do not result from formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking?
Reversed and remanded. The Court held that the Administrator’s interpretations are not 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 ess
IRAC Legal Analysis
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
What level of deference must a court give to an administrative agency’s interpretive rulings that do not result from formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking?
Conclusion
This case is foundational in administrative law, establishing the "power to persuade" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
Legal Rule
Rulings, interpretations, and opinions of an agency Administrator, while not controlling upon 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.
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court established a new standard for judicial review of agency 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 d
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.