CUDAHY PACKING CO. OF LOUISIANA, LIMITED,
v.
FLEMING

5th Cir. | 1941-04-19
No. 9619
119 F.2d 209 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1941) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the Administrator had the authority to issue the subpoena and the District Court had jurisdiction to enforce it.


Facts & Procedural History

The Wage and Hour Division Administrator issued a subpoena duces tecum to Cudahy Packing Company for wage and hour records. The company refused to com…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw