MITCHELL, SECRETARY OF LABOR,

v.

OREGON FROZEN FOODS CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Minnick v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 452 U.S. 105 (U.S. 1981)
  …Justice Brennan, concurring in the judgment. “In view of the ambiguities in the record as to the issues sought to be tendered,” I would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Co., 361 U. S. 231 (1960); see Doe v. Delaware, 450 U. S. 382, [*128] 386, n. 10 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Cowgill v. California, 396 U. S. 371, 371-372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring).…
• DOE v. Delaware, 450 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1981)
  …ed federal question is distinguishable from dismissal because of the inadequacy of the record for deciding the question presented, e. g., Cowgill v. California, 396 U. S. 371, 372 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring); Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Co., 361 U. S. 231 (1960) (dismissal of writ of certiorari); but cf. Villa v. Van Schaick, 299 U. S. 152, 155-156 (1936) (judgment on appeal vacated and remanded because of the inadequacy of the record), and from dismissal because problems of construction and interpre…
• Yogurt Master, Inc. v. Goldberg, 310 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1962)
  …xemption applies, and we must consider the holding of the district court in this light. Appellant relies on Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Company, 9 Cir., 1958, 264 F. 2d 599, cert. den., 359 U.S. 958, 79 S. Ct. 797, 3 L.Ed.2d 765, and dismissed, 361 U.S. 231, 80 S.Ct. 365, 4 L.Ed.2d 267, a case involving the fruit and vegetable exemption as distinguished from the dairy products exemption. Footnote (2), supra. There the defendant purchased vegetables from farmers. They were then cleaned, sorted, steam bl…