Legal Opinion
In re Holland
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 27, 1942PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
This is an application for an order to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor. The relief is sought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219.
The respondent interposes two objections to the enforcement of the subpoena. The first is that all but four of respondent’s employees are seamen and as such are exempt under the law. But section 13(a) of the Act does not grant a general exemption concerning seamen. It provides: “The provisions of sections 6 [206]…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Fleming v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- Madden v. Lykes Bros.-Ripley Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- General Tobacco & Grocery Co. v. FlemingCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Walling v. American Rolbal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943
- Walling v. BensonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
- Newmark & Company v. W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Leslie W. Woerth v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1956
- Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. WallingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1945
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.