Legal Opinion

Iocono v. Anastasio

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided August 18, 1948PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEDINA, District Judge.

In this action by thirty-five specifically named plaintiffs to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), plaintiffs move for leave to amend the summons and complaint by adding “and such other employees of the defendants who may join as plaintiffs in this action before the trial,” after the names of the plaintiffs enumerated in the caption.

The action was commenced by the filing of the complaint on September 3, 1947. Shortly thereafter, and on September 8,…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  2. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. WulfSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Southern Pacific Co. v. BogertSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  4. Richmond v. IronsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  5. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. De Franco v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1955
  2. Oliefabrik v. A. O. Smith Corp.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1958
  3. State v. American Pipe & Construction Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1970
  4. McKenzie v. Blidberg Rothchild Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
  5. Wilson v. EberleDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API