Legal Opinion
Schempf v. Armour & Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided March 13, 1946No. Civil Action No. 936PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DONOVAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff, “individually, and as agent, and as representative of all other employees of defendant corporation similarly situated”, commenced action against defendant to recover $7,000,000.00, said action being based upon claimed violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff, individually, and as agent and representative, was and is a resident of Minnesota. That defendant was and is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, and licensed to do business in Minnesota. That plaintiff…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. DarbySupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Culver v. Bell & Loffland, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1944
- Shain v. Armour & Co.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1941
- Lofther v. First Nat. Bank of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1941
- Saxton v. W. S. Askew Co.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1940
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kelley v. AlamoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
- Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1947
- Kelley v. AlamoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1992
- Adams v. Bell Aircraft Corp.District Court, W.D. New York · 1947
- Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1946
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.