Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Atallah v. B. H. Hubbert & Son, Inc.

168 F.2d 993

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1948-07-07
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Portal-to-Portal Act of May 14, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq. Counsel for appellants admit that it presents the precise point which was decided by this Court adversely to their contention in Seese v. Bethleham Steel Co., 4 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 58. Counsel for appellants here were heard as amici curiae in that appeal; and the arguments they now advance were fully considered when that case was before us.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Atallah v. B. H. Hubbert & Son, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
ATALLAH v. HUBBERT,168 F.2d 993(4th Cir. 1948)
ATALLAH et al. v. B.H. HUBBERT SON, Inc.
No. 5756.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
July 7, 1948.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, W. Calvin Chesnut, Judge.

Action by Albert Atallah, District Director, District 8, United Steelworkers of America (C.I.O.), for and on behalf of certain employees and others similarly situated, and others against B.H. Hubbert Son, Inc. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.
I. Duke Avnet, of Baltimore, Md., and Edgar Paul Boyko, of Arlington, Va., for appellants.

John H. Hessey and John H. Herold, both of Baltimore, Md., for appellee.
Before PARKER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges, and WATKINS, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Portal-to-Portal Act of May 14, 1947,29 U.S.C.A. § 251et seq. Counsel for appellants admit that it presents the precise point which was decided by this Court adversely to their contention in Seese v. Bethleham Steel Co., 4 Cir., 1948,168 F.2d 58. Counsel for appellants here were heard as amici curiae in that appeal; and the arguments they now advance were fully considered when that case was before us. There is nothing in their present argument which calls for a reconsideration of what we have so recently decided; and we do not feel that anything need be added to what we had to say in our opinion in the Seese case. The judgment below will accordingly be affirmed on the authority of that decision.

Affirmed.Page 1003