Tampa Sand & Material Co. v. Bricklayers, Masons, Plasterers, Marble Masons, Tile Layers, Terrazzo Workers, and Cement Finishers' Union No. 3, Florida
This text of 263 F.2d 300 (Tampa Sand & Material Co. v. Bricklayers, Masons, Plasterers, Marble Masons, Tile Layers, Terrazzo Workers, and Cement Finishers' Union No. 3, Florida) 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.
Opinions
The decision of this appeal is controlled by that in No. 17,246, Cone Brothers Contracting Company v. Bricklayers, Masons, Plasterers, Marble Masons, Tile Layers, Terrazzo Workers and Cement Finishers’ Union 3, Florida, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 297. Tampa Sand was a subcontractor of Cone Brothers, engaged in installing tile and similar products on the same motel job. To sustain its averment that “Plaintiff is and has been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 303(a) of the Act,” Tampa Sand alleged:
“ * * * At all times hereinafter mentioned it was engaged in the manufacture, sale and installation of concrete products used in connection with the construction of buildings. During the 12-month period next preceding the filing of this action, plaintiff purchased directly from sources outside the State of Florida goods the value of which was in excess of $500,000.00.”
For the reasons stated in No. 17,246, Gone Brothers Contracting Company v. Bricklayers, Masons, Plasterers, Marble Masons, Tile Layers, Terrazzo Workers and Cement Finishers’ Union No. 3, Florida, 5 Cir., 263 F.2d 297, we hold that that averment was sufficient.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
263 F.2d 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tampa-sand-material-co-v-bricklayers-masons-plasterers-marble-ca5-1959.