Durkin, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc

202 F.2d 425, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249, 23 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 67,423
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 18, 1953
Docket11667_1
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 202 F.2d 425 (Durkin, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durkin, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc, 202 F.2d 425, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249, 23 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 67,423 (6th Cir. 1953).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, together with appellee’s motion to dismiss the same, was heard upon the record, and briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And it appearing to. the Court that the order of January 19, 1952 (1) dismissed the claim of appellant based on appellee’s failure to pay overtime wages for workweeks prior to April 28, 1948, and (2) granted a recovery for the period between April 28, 1948 and May 18, 1950, the amount of said recovery to be determined thereafter in accordance with the stipulation between the parties previously filed therein, and that the only point presented by the present appeal is the alleged error of the Court in dismissing the claim of appellant based on appellee’s failure to pay overtime wages 'for work-weeks prior to April 28, 1948, no question being raised with respect to the amounts of recovery thereafter determined for the period between April 28, 1948 and May 18, 1950;

And the Court being of the opinion that the order of January 19, 1952, settled all the equities between the parties and finally determined their rights, notwithstanding the provision for determining the amount of said recovery, and was accordingly a final order within the meaning of section 1291, Title 28, U.S.Code; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; (U.S.) 12 L.Ed. 404; Gulf Refining Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125, 136, 46 S.Ct. 52, 70 L.Ed. 195; Delta Drilling Co. v. Arnett, 6 Cir., 186 F.2d 481, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 954, 71 S.Ct. 574, 95 L.Ed. 688, rehearing denied 341 U.S. 917, 71 S.Ct. 735, 95 L.Ed. 1352; see Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120, 124-125, 65 S.Ct. 1475, 89 L.Ed. 2092, and cases cited in Annotation 3 A.L.R.2d 346, 360;

*426 And, it appearing from the record that the present appeal was not taken within the time provided by section 2107, Title 28, U.S.Code;

It is ordered that appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Delta Drilling Co. v. Arnett; supra, 186 F.2d at page 484.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Smith
95 F. App'x 148 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department
739 F.2d 1109 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
In re Saco Local Development Corp.
711 F.2d 441 (First Circuit, 1983)
Nos. 74-1043, 74-1044
512 F.2d 209 (Third Circuit, 1975)
Hattersley v. Bollt
512 F.2d 209 (Third Circuit, 1975)
Gazin v. Hieber
504 P.2d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1972)
United States v. 93.970 Acres of Land
258 F.2d 17 (Seventh Circuit, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
202 F.2d 425, 1953 U.S. App. LEXIS 3249, 23 Lab. Cas. (CCH) 67,423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durkin-secretary-of-labor-u-s-department-of-labor-v-mason-dixon-ca6-1953.