Legal Opinion
Eisenmann v. Gould-National Batteries, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided November 12, 1958No. Civ. A. 21219PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
Sur Motion to Amend
This is a motion to amend the second cause of action pleaded in a complaint filed against their employer by a number of employees in a plant manufacturing lead acid storage batteries. The first cause of action is for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. and is not material to this discussion.
The proffered amendment consists of (1) A claim for wages unpaid and expenses incurred as a result of the defendant’s alleged failure to comply with its duty under the New Jersey occupational disease statute, N.J.S.A. 34:6-50…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Pentland v. Dravo CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Stephens v. ReedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1941
- County of Marin v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1957
- Pericin v. Denburg's Modern BakerySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1943
3Cited by15 opinions
- John H. Freeman, Jr., D/B/A Freeman Electric Gin Company v. Continental Gin CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- John S. Kirby, D/B/A Quik-Chek of Indiana and Quik-Chek, Inc. v. P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
- Jennette CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPERMARKETS GENERAL CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1969
- United States v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.