Panama Canal Company v. Manuel Garcia, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated

Fifth Circuit

Panama Canal Company v. Manuel Garcia, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated

382 F.2d 296, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5319

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 20, 1967

Docket23939_1

StatusPublished

This text of 382 F.2d 296 (Panama Canal Company v. Manuel Garcia, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Panama Canal Company v. Manuel Garcia, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated, 382 F.2d 296, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5319 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Garcia brought an action in the District Court of the Canal Zone for himself and other employees similarly situated against the Panama Canal Company claiming overtime wages for the period extending from November 6, 1959, through March 17, 1962. Garcia and the others of the class were employed at the Mindi Dairy, owned and operated by the Company. The facts were stipulated. The claims for overtime wages are based on Section 23 of the Act of March 28, 1934, the so-called Thomas Amendment. 48 Stat. 522. 1 The findings and conclusions of the district court are set forth in its reported opinion. Garcia v. Panama Canal Co., D.C.C.Z.1966, 253 F.Supp. 262. There is not and will not be any controversy with respect to compensation of Garcia and those of like situation for any period subsequent to March 17, 1962.

We are persuaded that the judgment of the district court was correct. It does not appear that a useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the contentions of the parties with respect to an issue that will not likely be raised again.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

1

. In the 1966 codification of Title 5, U.S.C., the Thomas Amendment appears as §§ 5544(a) and 6102.

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

PER CURIAM:

Manuel Garcia brought an action in the District Court of the Canal Zone for himself and other employees similarly situated against the Panama Canal Company claiming overtime wages for the period extending from November 6, 1959, through March 17, 1962. Garcia and the others of the class were employed at the Mindi Dairy, owned and operated by the Company. The facts were stipulated. The claims for overtime wages are based on Section 23 of the Act of March 28, 1934, the so-called Thomas Amendment. 48 Stat. 522. 1 The findings and conclusions of the district court are set forth in its reported opinion. Garcia v. Panama Canal Co., D.C.C.Z.1966, 253 F.Supp. 262. There is not and will not be any controversy with respect to compensation of Garcia and those of like situation for any period subsequent to March 17, 1962.

We are persuaded that the judgment of the district court was correct. It does not appear that a useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the contentions of the parties with respect to an issue that will not likely be raised again.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

1

. In the 1966 codification of Title 5, U.S.C., the Thomas Amendment appears as §§ 5544(a) and 6102.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 F.2d 296, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panama-canal-company-v-manuel-garcia-on-behalf-of-himself-and-others-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack