Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

settle it side by side

Compare "Const."

Search a term across every codebook at once. Expand any result inline, and pin the ones worth keeping to your shelf — they stay put while you keep searching.

Code of Federal Regulations
11
  • would not exclude it from the Act's coverage. 33 33 Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co., ante; Oklahoma v. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508; Cuascut v. Standard Dredging Corp ... Loftis Co., 167 F. (2d) 286 (C.A. 4). 36 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. 37 Divins v. Hazeltine Electronics Corp., 163 F. (2d) 100 (C.A. 2); Cf. Walling v. Haile Gold

  • Mitchell v. Vollmer, ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., ante; Mitchell v. Chambers Const. Co., 214 F. (2d) 515 (C.A. 10); Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; Tobin v. Pennington-Winter ... Const. Co., 198 F. (2d) 334 (C.A. 5), certiorari denied

  • Federal law and policy. (c) Preemption of State law. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. IV, cl. 2, and in order to achieve important Federal interests, including, but not limited

  • premises of such a facility. 17 Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, ante; Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. (3) On the other hand, the production and furnishings, within the State, of construction materials ... maintenance and repair, it would be subject to the Act. 22 22 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante. (d) Production of materials for use in construction work on interstate instrumentalities

  • bookkeeping, auditing, promotional, drafting, engineering, custodial and stock room employees. 11 10 Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., 156 F. (2d) 932, certiorari denied 329 U.S. 785; Chambers Construction ... Chambers v. Mitchell, decided June 5, 1956 (C.A. 8); Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co. ante; Mitchell v. Vollmer Co., ante. 11 Mitchell v. Brown Engineering Co., ante; Chambers Construction

  • /us/cfr/t10/s§ 210.1
    Records.

    (a) The recordkeeping requirements that were in effect on January

  • grain storage (see Tobin v. Flour Mils, 185 F. 2d 596; Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases

  • country elevators have been recognized by the courts. See, for example, Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases 269; Tobin v. Flour Mills, 185 F. 2d 596; Holt

  • receive grain except by rail. (See Tobin v. Flour Mills, supra; Mitchell v. Sampson Const. Co. (D. Kan.) 14 WH Cases 269.) It is the facilities of a country elevator

  • Fitzgerald Construction Co., ante; Bennett v. V. P. Loftis, ante; Walling v. McCrady Const. Co., ante; and Bodden v. McCormick Shipping Corp., 188 F. (2d) 733. 54 Maneja v. Waialua Agricultural

  • /us/cfr/t29/s§ 776.22b
    Guiding principles.

    Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., 167 F. (2d) 286 (C.A.4); Tobin v. Pennington-Winter Const. Co., 198 F. (2d) 334 (C.A.10), certiorari denied 345 U.S. 915; See General Coverage Bulletin

New: pin two sections to the shelf, select them, and get a word-for-word diff. Coming next — a plain-English summary of what actually differs, every claim linked back to the source.

★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.