Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich Co.
This text of 68 F. Supp. 782 (Sweet v. B. F. Goodrich Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 F. Supp. 782, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sweet-v-b-f-goodrich-co-ohnd-1946.