Durkin, Sec'y of Labor, U. S. Dep't of Labor v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc, 202 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1953). · Go Syfert
Durkin, Sec'y of Labor, U. S. Dep't of Labor v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc, 202 F.2d 425 (6th Cir. 1953). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department (ca6, 1985-05-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ca6 1985
6th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Mr. Gleeson was formerly a law clerk for a judge of this court 6 This was expressly held in Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 589 (8th Cir.1984) 7 Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 338 (5th Cir.1981); Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, 202 F.2d 425, 425-26 (6th Cir.1953) 1 Only one case has questioned the conclusiveness of an order denying counsel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Henry v. City of Detroit Manpower Department
6th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 338 (5th Cir.1981); Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, 202 F.2d 425, 425-26 (6th Cir.1953).
discussed Cited "see" Securities & Exchange Commission v. Smith
6th Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
However, a judgment may be “final if only ministerial [and uncontroversial] tasks in determining damages remain.” Id. at 316-17 (holding that an order granting recovery for the defendant employer’s failure to reinstate the plaintiffs to their former positions but ordering the parties to stipulate to the requisite amount of backpay was a final decision within § 1291 because the stipulation concerning damages was “ministerial and uncontroversial”); see Durkin v. Mason & Dixon Lines, 202 F.2d 425, 425 (6th Cir. 1953) (holding that an order granting recovery for the defendant’s failur…
DURKIN, Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor,
v.
MASON & DIXON LINES, Inc.
11667_1.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Feb 18, 1953.
202 F.2d 425
William S. Tyson, Sol., Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol, Wm. A. Lowe, and David F. Babson, Jr., Attys., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., and Paul H. Sanders, Reg. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellant., Clifford E. Sanders, Kingsport, Tenn., Penn, Hunter, Smith & Davis, Kingsport, Tenn., and Peter T. Beardsley, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Allen, Martin, Miller, Per Curiam.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This appeal, together with appellee’s motion to dismiss the same, was heard upon the record, and briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And it appearing to. the Court that the order of January 19, 1952 (1) dismissed the claim of appellant based on appellee’s failure to pay overtime wages for workweeks prior to April 28, 1948, and (2) granted a recovery for the period between April 28, 1948 and May 18, 1950, the amount of said recovery to be determined thereafter in accordance with the stipulation between the parties previously filed therein, and that the only point presented by the present appeal is the alleged error of the Court in dismissing the claim of appellant based on appellee’s failure to pay overtime wages 'for work-weeks prior to April 28, 1948, no question being raised with respect to the amounts of recovery thereafter determined for the period between April 28, 1948 and May 18, 1950;

And the Court being of the opinion that the order of January 19, 1952, settled all the equities between the parties and finally determined their rights, notwithstanding the provision for determining the amount of said recovery, and was accordingly a final order within the meaning of section 1291, Title 28, U.S.Code; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 201; (U.S.) 12 L.Ed. 404; Gulf Refining Co. v. United States, 269 U.S. 125, 136, 46 S.Ct. 52, 70 L.Ed. 195; Delta Drilling Co. v. Arnett, 6 Cir., 186 F.2d 481, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 954, 71 S.Ct. 574, 95 L.Ed. 688, rehearing denied 341 U.S. 917, 71 S.Ct. 735, 95 L.Ed. 1352; see Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120, 124-125, 65 S.Ct. 1475, 89 L.Ed. 2092, and cases cited in Annotation 3 A.L.R.2d 346, 360;

[*426] And, it appearing from the record that the present appeal was not taken within the time provided by section 2107, Title 28, U.S.Code;

It is ordered that appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained. Delta Drilling Co. v. Arnett; supra, 186 F.2d at page 484.