Holland v. General Motors Corporation
District Court, W.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
KNIGHT, District Judge.
Each of the above-entitled actions is a so-called “Portal-to-Portal” suit. The defendant moves for a dismissal on the ground that the complaint does not allege the necessary jurisdictional facts.
The plaintiffs urge that a decision of the motion should be deferred pending a “factual” determination. This contemplates deferment to the conclusion of the trial of one or all of these suits in which there are hundreds oí parties-plaintiff and in which' it may well be presumed there will be presented many issues of fact.
The question of the constitutionality of the…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited46 opinions
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
- Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1949
- Fisch v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1948
- Thomas v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1948
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.