Legal Opinion
Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided December 12, 1947No. Civil Actions 935-937PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DONOVAN, District Judge.
Plaintiffs “individually and as agent and as representative of all other employees of defendant corporation similarly situated” commenced action against The Cudahy Packing Company on October 19, 1945, and against Armour and Company and Swift & Company on October 20, 1945, to recover overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. For convenience the defendants will be referred to as Cudahy, Armour and Swift. Subsequent to the commencement of the actions, other plaintiffs were added by order of the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad v. Muscoda Local No. 123Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1911
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
- Buchholtz v. Swift & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1973
- Thomas v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. King Packing Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1954
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.