Legal Opinion
Viceroy Gold Corp. v. Aubry
District Court, N.D. California
Decided July 21, 1994No. C-93-4116-VRWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WALKER, District Judge.
Plaintiff Viceroy Gold Corporation (“Viceroy”) operates a gold processing facility in San Bernardino County called the Castle Mountain Mine (“Castle Mountain"). Castle Mountain is a non-union mine employing workers who operate equipment to recover gold ore from rock. The ore processing is performed by complex machinery utilizing a substantially automated procedure. Witt Decl in Supp at ¶¶4-6.
Castle Mountain operates twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, using rotating shifts. The mine workers currently work eight-hour shifts and forty-hour work weeks. Because…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Allen v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- California Cosmetology Coalition v. RileyDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1994
- Coalition of New York State Carrier Schools, Inc. v. RileyDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1995
- Hood v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1995