Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins

D.C. Circuit

Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins

107 F.2d 627, 70 App. D.C. 354

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 1939

DocketNo. 7368

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 107 F.2d 627 (Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins, 107 F.2d 627, 70 App. D.C. 354 (D.C. Cir. 1939).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

This cause was specially set down for argument on the appellants’ (plaintiffs’) petition for an injunction against the above named appellees (defendants) restraining them from continuing in effect a determination made under date .-of January 16, 1939, by appellee McLaughlin, as Acting Secretary of Labor, pursuant to “An Act To provide conditions for the purchase of supplies and the making of contracts by the United States, and for other purposes.”, approved June 30, 1936, 49 Stat. 2036, 41 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seq. We had previously granted an injunction pendente lite, which will be continued in effect.

The case was fully argued at the hearing and has been given due consideration. Justices MILLER and VINSON are of opinion that the complaint states a valid cause of action entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction as prayed therein and, therefore, are of opinion that the District Court was in error in dismissing the complaint. The grounds of this court’s opinion will be filed shortly, and Justice EDGERTON will file a dissenting opinion. A judgment will thereupon be entered remanding the cause to the District Court, with instructions to set aside and vacate its previous order dismissing the complaint, and directing that court to proceed in accordance with the opinion of this court.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause was specially set down for argument on the appellants’ (plaintiffs’) petition for an injunction against the above named appellees (defendants) restraining them from continuing in effect a determination made under date .-of January 16, 1939, by appellee McLaughlin, as Acting Secretary of Labor, pursuant to “An Act To provide conditions for the purchase of supplies and the making of contracts by the United States, and for other purposes.”, approved June 30, 1936, 49 Stat. 2036, 41 U.S.C.A. § 35 et seq. We had previously granted an injunction pendente lite, which will be continued in effect.

The case was fully argued at the hearing and has been given due consideration. Justices MILLER and VINSON are of opinion that the complaint states a valid cause of action entitling the plaintiffs to an injunction as prayed therein and, therefore, are of opinion that the District Court was in error in dismissing the complaint. The grounds of this court’s opinion will be filed shortly, and Justice EDGERTON will file a dissenting opinion. A judgment will thereupon be entered remanding the cause to the District Court, with instructions to set aside and vacate its previous order dismissing the complaint, and directing that court to proceed in accordance with the opinion of this court.

James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Covington Mills, Inc., James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor v. Alabama Mills, Inc., National Association of Cotton Manufacturers v. Covington Mills, Inc., National Association of Cotton Manufacturers v. Alabama Mills, Inc., Textile Workers Union of America, CIO v. Covington Mills, Inc., Textile Workers Union of America, CIO v. Alabama Mills, Inc.

229 F.2d 506 (D.C. Circuit, 1956)

Mitchell v. Covington Mills, Inc.

229 F.2d 506 (D.C. Circuit, 1955)

Covington Mills v. Mitchell

129 F. Supp. 740 (District of Columbia, 1955)

Porter v. Tankar Gas, Inc.

68 F. Supp. 103 (D. Minnesota, 1946)

United States v. Public Utilities Commission

151 F.2d 609 (D.C. Circuit, 1945)

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Byrnes

137 F.2d 547 (D.C. Circuit, 1943)

Associated Broadcasters, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

108 F.2d 737 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)

Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins

107 F.2d 627 (D.C. Circuit, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 F.2d 627, 70 App. D.C. 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lukens-steel-co-v-perkins-cadc-1939.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack