Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coulter v. St Francis Acdmy Inc, 96-60425 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 96-60425 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-60425 Summary Calendar _ CURTIS COULTER; KATHY COULTER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus ST. FRANCIS ACADEMY, INCORPORATED, PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:95:CV-320GR _ March 14, 1997 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Curtis and Kathy Coulter appeal from a summary judgment in favor of St. Fra
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 96-60425
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


CURTIS COULTER; KATHY COULTER,

                                               Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                              versus

ST. FRANCIS ACADEMY, INCORPORATED,
PICAYUNE, MISSISSIPPI,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                 Southern District of Mississippi
                      USDC No. 1:95:CV-320GR
_________________________________________________________________
                          March 14, 1997
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Curtis and Kathy Coulter appeal from a summary judgment in

favor of St. Francis Academy finding it exempt from provisions of

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 201 et seq.      The court

cannot look to legislative intent when the statute is rational and

unambiguous.   See In re Hammers, 
988 F.2d 32
, 34 (5th Cir. 1993).

                                                     A F F I R M E D.



     *
      Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer