Cudahy Packing Co. of Louisiana v. Fleming, 9619.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 9619.,9619. |
| Citation | 119 F.2d 209 |
| Parties | CUDAHY PACKING CO. OF LOUISIANA, Limited, v. FLEMING. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Stephen C. Hartel and Jonas C. Sporl, both of New Orleans, La., for appellant.
Gerard Reilly, Sol., Wage & Hour Div., Department of Labor, Irvin J. Levy, Asst. Sol., Wage & Hour Div., Department of Labor, and Bessie Margolin, Senior Atty., Wage & Hour Div., Department of Labor, all of Washington, D. C., and D. Douglas Howard, Asst. Atty., Wage & Hour Div., Department of Labor, of New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
The Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division issued a subpoena duces tecum, under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., against Cudahy Packing Company of Louisiana, Ltd., requiring it to appear before a designated representative in New Orleans, at a time and place fixed, to testify and produce certain documents relative to the wages paid their employees and the hours worked during the period from October 24, 1938 to March 23, 1940.
The packing company declined to comply and a proceeding was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to compel obedience to the subpoena. After an extended hearing, the Court entered judgment compelling obedience to the order, with certain exceptions as to some of the records called for. This appeal followed.
There is no doubt the administrator had authority to issue the subpoena and the Court had jurisdiction to enforce it. W. "Blondie" Graham v. Federal Tender Board No. 1, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 8; President of United States v. Skeen and Duncan, 5 Cir., 118 F.2d 58, both decided by us March 4, 1941.
No error appearing from the record, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling News Printing Co v. Same
...Walling v. Standard Dredging Corp., 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 322; Walling v. American Rolbal Corp., 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 1003; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 209, reversed on other grounds, 315 U.S. 357, 788, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Fleming, 8 Cir., 122 F.2d 1......
-
General Tobacco & Grocery Co. v. Fleming
...which we find necessary here. The appellee leans heavily upon two decisions of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Cudahy Packing Co. of Louisiana v. Fleming, 119 F.2d 209, and President of United States v. Skeen, 118 F.2d 58, 59. The Cudahy case sheds little light, inasmuch as from the sho......
-
Walling v. News Printing Co.
...denied 319 U.S. 761, 63 S.Ct. 1318, 87 L.Ed. 1712; Walling v. American Rolbal Corporation, 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 1003; Cudahy Packing Co. v. Fleming, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 209, reversed on other grounds, 315 U.S. 357, 62 S. Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. 895; Mississippi Road Supply Co. v. Walling, 5 Cir., 136 F.......
-
Fleming v. Cudahy Packing Co., 1802.
...Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Company, 264 U.S. 298, 44 S.Ct. 336, 68 L.Ed. 696, 32 A.L.R. 786; Cudahy Packing Company of Louisiana v. Fleming, Administrator, 5 Cir., 119 F.2d 209; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U.S. 612, 31 S.Ct. 621, 55 L.Ed. 8......