JAMES D. HODGSON, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM P. MORRIS AND WARREN G. MORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
JAMES D. HODGSON, SECRETARY OF LABOR, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
WILLIAM P. MORRIS AND WARREN G. MORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
437 F.2d 896
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1971)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Minimum Wage
Stipulation Of Facts
Violation Of Fair Labor Standards Act (Flsa)
Overtime Compensation
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Minimum Wage cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The appellants complain of the decision of the district court in an action brought by the Secretary of Labor under the provisions of § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 217. The Secretary contended that the appellants (employers) were violating provisions of §§ 15(a) (2) and 15(a) (5) of the Act and sought an injunction to restrain such violations and further to restrain the appellants from withholding payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due certain employees. Since the case was submitted upon a written stipulation of facts, there is no factual dispute under review. The district court granted the relief sought except that it refused to enjoin and restrain the appellants from future violations of the Act.1
We have given full consideration to the contentions of the parties and find ourselves in agreement with the opinion and judgment of the district court. George P. Shultz (James D. Hodgson), Secretary of Labor v. William P. Morris and Warren G. Morris, 315 F.Supp. 558 (M.D.Ala.1970).
The judgment is affirmed.
. The appellants do not here contest the findings and conclusions of the district court that the three stores involved did constitute an “enterprise” within the meaning of the Act as amended.
Other
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodgson v. Jones, 453 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1971)
-
Marshall v. Shan-An-Dan, Inc., 747 F.2d 1084 (6th Cir. 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)