James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Per curiam
The petition for rehearing assumes that this Court has followed an incorrect approach and has held that the findings of-the trial court were affirmed because not found clearly erroneous. We take our stand firmly upon the findings of fact and the able opinion of the District Judge, which clearly interprets the statute in the light of the facts so found. Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Company, 145 F.Supp. 157, 162-163. But this Court simply found that the interpretation of the clause of the statute relating to “first processing,” 1 in view of the facts found in the record, was correct. We do…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McComb v. Hunt Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Hendricks v. Di Giorgio Fruit CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1943
- Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1956
- Walling v. California Conserving Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1945
- Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation v. Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. v. DaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1978
- Yogurt Master, Inc. v. GoldbergCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Melton v. A. C. F. Wrigley, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- Shultz v. Twin City Foods, Inc.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1970
- Ballard's Farm Sausage, Inc. v. DaileyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1978
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.