Legal Opinion

Sadler v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co.

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided February 26, 1948No. 4522PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RIDGE, District Judge.

Federal District Courts have the duty to enforce statutory limitations as to their jurisdiction. Such Courts, on their own motion, if led to believe that their jurisdiction is not properly invoked, should inquire into facts as they really exist, or require a specific statement of facts to be incorporated in the pleadings clearly establishing the jurisdiction of the Court. Mc-Nutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135.

Section 2(d) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 251-262, withdraws from the Courts…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. Smith v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Sadler v. W. S. Dickey Clay Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1947

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
  2. Brandt v. Bay City Super MarketDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1960
  3. Coyle v. Philadelphia Macaroni Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Hutchings v. LandoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1949
  5. Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API