PANAMA CANAL COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
MANUEL GARCIA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE
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.
The judgment of the district court was correct.
Employees of the Mindi Dairy sued the Panama Canal Company for overtime wages for a specific period. The facts were stipulated.…
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.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Garcia brought an action in the District Court of the Canal Zone for himself and other employees similarly situated against the Panama Canal Company claiming overtime wages for the period extending from November 6, 1959, through March 17, 1962. Garcia and the others of the class were employed at the Mindi Dairy, owned and operated by the Company. The facts were stipulated. The claims for overtime wages are based on Section 23 of the Act of March 28, 1934, the so-called Thomas Amendment. 48 Stat. 522.1 The findings and conclusions of the district court are set forth in its reported opinion. Garcia v. Panama Canal Co., D.C.C.Z.1966, 253 F.Supp. 262. There is not and will not be any controversy with respect to compensation of Garcia and those of like situation for any period subsequent to March 17, 1962.
We are persuaded that the judgment of the district court was correct. It does not appear that a useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the contentions of the parties with respect to an issue that will not likely be raised again.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed.
. In the 1966 codification of Title 5, U.S.C., the Thomas Amendment appears as §§ 5544(a) and 6102.