Legal Opinion

Cummings v. Hubbell

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 5, 1948No. Civ. No. 88PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOLLMER, District Judge.

This is a suit under the reemployment provisions of Section 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, as amended, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 308, and as extended by the Service Extension Act of 1941, Title 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 357.

The plaintiff seeks reemployment with the defendant under the conditions which prevailed at the time of his induction into the Army of the United States, and compensation for loss in wages and earnings suffered by him by reason of the defendant’s alleged wrongful failure and refusal to return him to his former position.

The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kay v. General Cable CorporationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1945
  2. McCarthy v. M & M Transp. Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1947
  3. Grasso v. CrowhurstCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
  4. Van Doren v. Van Doren Laundry Service, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1946

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Harry W. Smith v. Missouri Pacific Transportation CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1963
  2. Muscianese v. United States Steel CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Stephen Laurence Carmalt (Veteran's Reemployment Rights) v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
  4. Marque v. SternDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
  5. Hicks v. United States Radiator Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1955

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API