Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
68 F. Supp. 782, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017
District Court, N.D. Ohio·Decided October 28, 1946·No. Civil Action No. 23932·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
In the view taken by the Court on the motions, oral argument requested by the defendant seems unnecessary. The District Court is one of limited jurisdiction which the Congress can grant or take away. Jurisdiction is never a question to be left to doubt. If the Congress grants it it must appear by clear and unambiguous provisions. No grant of jurisdiction either directly or by delegation provides a forum here for the violation of Executive Order No. 9240, 40 U.S.C.A. § 326 note.
Motions of defendant will be sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 68 F. Supp. 782, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017 (N.D. Ohio 1946).
68 F. Supp. 782 (Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Willy Dreyfus v. August Von Finck and Merck, Finck & Co.
534 F.2d 24 (Second Circuit, 1976)
CANAL ZONE CENTRAL LABOR UNION, ETC. v. Fleming
246 F. Supp. 998 (District Court, Canal Zone, 1965)
Canal Zone Central Labor Union & Metal Trades Council v. Fleming
246 F. Supp. 998 (District Court, Canal Zone, 1965)
McDaniel v. Brown & Root, Inc.
172 F.2d 466 (Tenth Circuit, 1949)
Crabb v. Welden Bros.
164 F.2d 797 (Eighth Circuit, 1947)
Diven v. North American Refractories Co.
60 Pa. D. & C. 363 (Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Kasper v. National Electric Products Corp.
70 F. Supp. 927 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)