Morford v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Carey, Judge.
The first question is whether Bellanca’s pleadings will support judgments in its favor because it failed to negative all the exceptions contained in the regulations. Those pleadings, for example, do not aver that Bellanca had more than eight employees at the time, although they do contain statements indicating that Morford’s position was a newly created one for which no salary had ever been approved and that there was no known salary rate prevailing for similar job classifications within the local area. Thacker v. American Foundry et al. 78 Cal.App.2d 76, 177 P.2d 322 and Kalina…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Highland v. Russell Car & Snow Plow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Employers Group of Motor Freight Carriers, Inc. v. National War Labor BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1944
- Fitzsimons v. Eagle Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1939
- New York & Pennsylvania Co. v. Cunard Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- In Re Pringle Engineering & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wilmington Trust Co. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- American International Group, Consol. Deriv. Lit.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2009
- Flight Equipment & Engineering Corp. v. SheltonSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
- Equitable Trust Co. v. GallagherSupreme Court of Delaware · 1954
- Trumble v. WasmerWashington Supreme Court · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.