Tilbury v. Mitchell, 15409.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 15409.,15409. |
| Citation | 220 F.2d 757 |
| Parties | M. A. TILBURY, doing business as Tilbury's Southern Meat Company, Appellant, v. James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Robert G. Chandler, Shreveport, La., for appellant.
Morton J. Marks, Atty. Dept. of Labor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., Washington, D. C., Earl Street, Regional Atty., Dallas, Tex., Frederick J. Stewart, Shreveport, La., Stuart Rothman, Sol., Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
For the reasons stated by Judge Dawkins, Jr., in his opinion in these cases, and upon the authorities therein cited, the judgments appealed from are affirmed. These cases were by consent consolidated for trial in the court below with separate judgments to be entered in each case, which was done. The opinion of Judge Dawkins is reported in D.C., 123 F.Supp., pages 109-115.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montalvo v. Tower Life Building
...by the employee is of no consequence. Tilburry v. Rogers, 123 F.Supp. 109 (W.D.La.1954), affirmed per curiam in Tilburry v. Mitchell. 220 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1955)." In the present case the record clearly shows that there were employees in the Company's offices who regularly and recurrently ......
-
MAGTAB PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. Howard
...Steel Corp., 251 U.S. 417, 445, 40 S.Ct. 293, 64 L.Ed. 343; Tilbury v. Rogers, D.C., 123 F. Supp. 109, 114, affirmed Tilbury v. Mitchell, 5 Cir., 220 F.2d 757, (per curiam); United States v. Standard Oil Co., D.C., 78 F.Supp. 850, affirmed 337 U.S. 293, 69 S.Ct. 1051, 93 L.Ed. 1371; Champio......
-
Adkins v. Mid-American Growers, Inc.
...Plains Publ'g Co., 327 U.S. 178, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607 (1946); Mitchell v. Jaffe, 261 F.2d 883 (5th Cir.1958); Tilbury v. Mitchell, 220 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1955), aff'g per curiam, 123 F.Supp. 109 However, at least one case has applied the de minimis doctrine in an agricultural exemptio......
-
Rodgers v. Wright's Provisions, Inc., Civ. A. No. 68-61.
...when processed, moved in interstate commerce. Again, in Tilbury v. Rogers (D.C.La.1954) 123 F.Supp. 109, 113, aff. Tilbury v. Mitchell (C.C.A. 5 Cir.) 220 F.2d 757, cert. denied 350 U.S. 839, 76 S.Ct. 77, 100 L.Ed. 748, the employees found to be covered by the Act were butchers and boners "......