From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, E.D
Oct 28, 1946
68 F. Supp. 782 (N.D. Ohio 1946)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 23932.

October 28, 1946.

A.M. Oliver, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Wm. J. Corrigan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiffs.

L.M. Buckingham and Dwight Parsons, both of Akron, Ohio, for defendant.


In the view taken by the Court on the motions, oral argument requested by the defendant seems unnecessary. The District Court is one of limited jurisdiction which the Congress can grant or take away. Jurisdiction is never a question to be left to doubt. If the Congress grants it it must appear by clear and unambiguous provisions. No grant of jurisdiction either directly or by delegation provides a forum here for the violation of Executive Order No. 9240, 40 U.S.C.A. § 326 note.

Motions of defendant will be sustained.


Summaries of

Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, E.D
Oct 28, 1946
68 F. Supp. 782 (N.D. Ohio 1946)
Case details for

Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Co.

Case Details

Full title:SWEET et al. v. B.F. GOODRICH CO

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, E.D

Date published: Oct 28, 1946

Citations

68 F. Supp. 782 (N.D. Ohio 1946)

Citing Cases

Sweet v. B.F. Goodrich Company

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland; Robert N. Wilkin,…

Molokai Homesteaders Cooperative Ass'n v. Morton

In view of the conclusions stated below, no opinion is expressed as to whether this court could enforce the…