CANNON

v.

TINKHAM

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Binghamton Constr. Co., Inc., 347 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1954)
  …pare 49 Stat. 1011, 40 U. S. C. §276a-2 (b), conferring a right of action on employees to recover from the contractor the amount due the employees under the minimum wage schedule. United States v. Morley Const. Co., 98 F. 2d 781, 788, cert. denied, 305 U. S. 651; Gillioz v. Webb, 99 F. 2d 585; Winn-Senter Const. Co. v. United States, 110 Ct. Cl. 34, 61, 75 F. Supp. 255, 257-258; cf. Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U. S. 113, 128; Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Perkins, 317 U. S. 501, 507. See also H. R. Rep. No…
• Dallas-Fort Worth Reg'l Airport Bd. v. Combustion Equip. Assocs., Inc., 623 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …44, 34 S.Ct. 843, 845-46, 58 L.Ed. 1294 (1914); United States ex rel. Gillioz v. John Kerns Construction Co., 140 F. 2d 792, 797-98 (8th Cir. 1944); United States ex rel. Johnson v. Morley Construction Co., 98 F. 2d 781, 788 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 651, 59 S.Ct. 244, 83 L.Ed. 421 (1938); Goodrum v. State, 158 S.W. 2d 81, 87-88 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1942, writ ref’d w.o.m.). If a new deadline is established through notice or through expiration of a discretely measurable reasonable time, however…
• Farley v. Heininger, 105 F.2d 79 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
  …evidence, the law has been violated. It is only in a case where there is no evidence reasonably to support the conclusion found that we may enjoin the enforcement of a fraud order. Farley v. Simmons, 69 App.D.C. 110, 99 F. 2d 343, certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 651, 59 S.Ct. 244, 83 L.Ed. -. Appellee does not challenge the correctness of this statement of the rule, but contends that there is no substantial evidence in the present case to support the order in question. With this we cannot agree. It appears fro…

  ← 1 / 2 →