From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 2, 1951
187 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1951)

Opinion

No. 12257.

February 2, 1951.

Mohr Borstein and Perry Bertram, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants Biggs et al.

Thelen, Marrin, Johnson Bridges and Robert H. Sanders, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Joshua Hendy Corp.

Before HEALY, ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges.


On the 28th day of June, 1950, we filed an opinion in this case wherein we reserved final determination in order to afford counsel for the respective parties an opportunity to be heard on the question of the constitutional validity of the retroactive provisions of § 216(b) of Title 29, U.S.C.A. No response was made by appellant or by appellee. However, briefs on behalf of the United States of America pursuant to permission to intervene, and of Pacific Maritime Association as amicus curiae, were filed. The identical question presented in this case was decided by this court in the case of Moss v. Hawaiian Dredging Company, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 442 wherein the constitutionality of the retroactive provisions of § 216(b) was upheld. The question reserved for consideration in the case of Edward R. Biggs, John R. Hector, J.H. Lueder and Martin M. Moreno, Appellants, v. Joshua Hendy Corporation, Appellee, No. 12,257, having been disposed of by this court, the judgment entered in said case No. 12,257, is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion filed on June 28, 1950.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corporation

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 2, 1951
187 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1951)
Case details for

Biggs v. Joshua Hendy Corporation

Case Details

Full title:BIGGS et al. v. JOSHUA HENDY CORPORATION

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 2, 1951

Citations

187 F.2d 447 (9th Cir. 1951)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Superior Casing Crews

They had no regular sleeping period, and, indeed, could expect none. They were completely under Superior's…

Reich v. S. New Eng. Telecomms. Corp.

For example, an office employee who is required to eat at his desk or a factory worker who is required to be…