In re Walling

S.D. New York

In re Walling

50 F. Supp. 560, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2694

DecidedMarch 31, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 50 F. Supp. 560 (In re Walling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Walling, 50 F. Supp. 560, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2694 (S.D.N.Y. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, applies to this court on notice to Grieco Brothers, Inc., respondent, for an order directing compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by him pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., in connection with an investigation being conducted by the Administrator to determine whether the respondent has violated certain specified sections of the Act and in aid of the enforcement of the provisions thereof.

Upon the argument of this motion, counsel for the respondent stated that if the court found jurisdiction, respondent would comply with the subpoena. This proceeding, therefore, narrows down to a question of law.

The power and authority of the Administrator and the jurisdiction of this court appear to have been settled. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 63 S.Ct. 339, 87 L.Ed. -; Application of Holland, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 601, affirmed Walling v. Standard Dredging Co., 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 322; Walling v. Golebiewski, Inc., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 448, 449. See also opinion of my colleague, Judge Conger, in Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., decided Nov. 18, 1942.

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

HULBERT, District Judge.

The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor, applies to this court on notice to Grieco Brothers, Inc., respondent, for an order directing compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by him pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, § 1 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., in connection with an investigation being conducted by the Administrator to determine whether the respondent has violated certain specified sections of the Act and in aid of the enforcement of the provisions thereof.

Upon the argument of this motion, counsel for the respondent stated that if the court found jurisdiction, respondent would comply with the subpoena. This proceeding, therefore, narrows down to a question of law.

The power and authority of the Administrator and the jurisdiction of this court appear to have been settled. Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U.S. 501, 63 S.Ct. 339, 87 L.Ed. -; Application of Holland, D.C., 44 F.Supp. 601, affirmed Walling v. Standard Dredging Co., 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 322; Walling v. Golebiewski, Inc., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 448, 449. See also opinion of my colleague, Judge Conger, in Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., decided Nov. 18, 1942.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 F. Supp. 560, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-walling-nysd-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack