DI MELIA

v.

BOWLES, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Martini v. Porter, 157 F.2d 35 (9th Cir. 1946)
  …he “seller” is individually liable for the overcharge which he collects. He cannot complain because a servant made the sales for him. Cf. Bowles v. Lee’s Ice Cream, App.D.C., 148 F. 2d 113; DiMelia v. Bowles, 1 Cir., 148 F. 2d 725, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1581, 89 L.Ed. 2000. Moreover, the evidence in this case is clear that appellants knew of the price being charged. If this were a tort, appellants participated in it and would not be merely vicariously liable. Since appellants are individu…
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Wyandotte Transp. Co., 162 F.2d 101 (6th Cir. 1947)
  …etion to determine appropriate units and that if there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination, that determination will rarely be disturbed. In Jones & Laughlin Corporation v. N.L.R.B., 5 Cir., 146 F. 2d 833, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1575, 89 L.Ed. 2000, the court held that a bargaining unit composed of masters of ships along with other licensed deck officers and pilots, was appropriately chosen. In our case the first mates seem to have exercised some authority over th…
• Wilson & Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 162 F.2d 310 (8th Cir. 1947)
  …ds are not “employees” within the meaning of the Act or that they do not constitute a practical unit for collective bargaining. As said in Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 146 F. 2d 833, 835, certiorari denied, 325 U.S. 886, 65 S.Ct. 1575, 89 L.Ed. 2000, “The general fear that all classes of employees may make common cause in case of future disputes is always present because such co-operation is always possible.” But these facts- and fears do not except the guards from…