Inglot v. Columbia Aircraft Products, Inc.

Third Circuit

Inglot v. Columbia Aircraft Products, Inc.

166 F.2d 433, 21 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2382, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3151

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 1948

DocketNo. 9368

StatusPublished

This text of 166 F.2d 433 (Inglot v. Columbia Aircraft Products, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Inglot v. Columbia Aircraft Products, Inc., 166 F.2d 433, 21 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2382, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3151 (3d Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, an honorably discharged veteran, sought in the district court an award of compensation from the respondent for loss of wages from January 7, 1946, to May 27, 1946, under Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(e). He asserted that he had applied for his former position with the respondent but had been denied reinstatement to that or an equivalent position. We may accept the petitioner’s assertion that on or about January 7, 1946 he applied to the respondent for reinstatement in his former job of tool maker. The district court, however, found that this particular job was not available either then or thereafter during the period in' question and that the respondent offered the petitioner another job of like seniority, status and pay which he was not willing to accept. These findings are supported by the evidence and they in turn support the [434]*434court’s conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the award of compensation he seeks.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, an honorably discharged veteran, sought in the district court an award of compensation from the respondent for loss of wages from January 7, 1946, to May 27, 1946, under Section 8(e) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 308(e). He asserted that he had applied for his former position with the respondent but had been denied reinstatement to that or an equivalent position. We may accept the petitioner’s assertion that on or about January 7, 1946 he applied to the respondent for reinstatement in his former job of tool maker. The district court, however, found that this particular job was not available either then or thereafter during the period in' question and that the respondent offered the petitioner another job of like seniority, status and pay which he was not willing to accept. These findings are supported by the evidence and they in turn support the [434]*434court’s conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the award of compensation he seeks.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 F.2d 433, 21 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2382, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 3151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inglot-v-columbia-aircraft-products-inc-ca3-1948.