Legal Opinion

Amelbo v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 4, 1949No. Civ. No. 6269PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This is a suit to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. Defendant has moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint, as amended, fails to allege that the activities for which compensation is claimed were compensable by contract provision, custom or practice. Defendant claims that such an allegation is necessary under Section 2 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq. Plaintiff opposes the motion on two grounds, arguing that such an allegation is unnecessary because the Portal-to-Portal Act…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Continental Collieries, Inc. v. ShoberCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1942
  2. Central Missouri Tel. Co. v. ConwellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1948
  3. Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1947
  4. Battery Workers' Union Local 113 v. Electric Storage Battery Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
  5. Shaievitz v. LaksDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1948

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Culkin v. Glenn L. Martin Nebraska Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1951
  2. Welsh v. W. J. Dillner Transfer Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1950

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

Powered by the Exa API