Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Meyer Feinberg
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided July 31, 1956No. 88, Docket 23464Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWaterman, Circuit Judge
- I concur in the per curiam opinion filed by my colleagues insofar as they affirm the decision below that the record-keeping provisions were violated. I dissent therefrom insofar 'as they hold that there was no violation of the overtime provisions, for I believe this case is so different on its facts from Mitchell v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co. that the facts here require affirmance of the decision below. Although many of the contentions of the Secretary of Labor are disposed of adversely to him by our Hartford decision, it is my thought ’that the provision in ap’péllant…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Morris v. McCombSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- 149 Madison Avenue Corp. v. AsseltaSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Walling v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Brandtjen & Kluge, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1955
- Mitchell v. FeinbergDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1954