In one click, you will find all the information you are interested in about MITCHELL V ROBERT DEMARIO JEWELRY. We have collected the most complete and diverse information for you.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/361/288/
Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288 (1960)
https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep361288/
Title U.S. Reports: Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, 361 U.S. 288 (1960). Contributor Names Harlan II, John Marshall (Judge)
https://d1tvxue8o4w0fl.cloudfront.net/case/mitchell-v-demario-jewelry
Read Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, 361 U.S. 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1957980180fsupp8001817
1. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., the corporate defendant, is engaged in the business of manufacturing jewelry at Fort Gaines, Georgia, and has been continuously so engaged since its incorporation on September 19th, 1955.
https://lawaspect.com/case-mitchell-v-robert-demario-jewelry-inc/
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 16, 1959 (Part 2) in Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 16, 1959 (Part 1) in Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. Earl Warren: Number 39, Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, Petitioner versus Robert DeMario Jewelry Company. Ms. Margolin.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1960649361us2881573
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 15 a 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 52 Stat. 1068...61us2881573
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/105984/mitchell-v-robert-demario-jewelry-inc/?page=253
Opinion for Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288, 80 S. Ct. 332, 4 L. Ed. 2d 323, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1957 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/challenge-to-the-ftcs-restitution-authority-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/
Jan 12, 2021 · Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946) (interpreting the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942), and Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U.S. 288 (1960) (interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act). Both of those cases held that statutory language authorizing injunctive relief implicitly authorized restitution.
https://www.txcourts.gov/All_Archived_Documents/SupremeCourt/oralarguments/transcripts/02-0988.pdf
and Mitchell v. Robert Demario Jewelry, 1960. In both of those cases a federal agency under a fe de ra l in jun ctio n s ta tut e so ug ht i n the case of Por te r r esti tut ion of re nts tha t w ere coll ecte d in exce ss of the maximum amount of rents that were allowed under the federal statute. And in Mitchell the
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-914/138869/20200323125926327_19-914%20Credit%20Bureau%20Center%20v.%20FTC%20FTC%20Opposition.pdf
(1) in the supreme court of the united states ————— no. 19-914 credit bureau center, llc and michael brown, petitioners v. federal trade commission on petition for a writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit
You've looked at the most informative MITCHELL V ROBERT DEMARIO JEWELRY links. On our site you can also find a lot of other information related to jewelry.
