W. H. H. CHAMBERLIN, INC.

v.

ANDREWS, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK, ET AL.; E. C. STEARNS & CO. V. SAME; AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK STATE, INC. V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OF NEW YORK ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Carmichael v. S. Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1937)
  …bama act should be condemned, I entertain no doubt that the Wisconsin plan is so fair, reasonable and just as to make plain its constitutional validity; and that the Alabama statute, like the New York statute involved in Chamberlin, Inc. v. Andrews, 299 U. S. 515, affirmed by an equally-divided court during the present term, is so arbitrary as . to result in a denial both of due process and equal protection of the laws. I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Van Devanteb and Mr. Justice Butler concur in th…
• Standard Dredging Corp. v. Murphy, 319 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1943)
  …xing acts, are not excluded from the coverage of such acts either by Article 3, § 2 of the Constitution, or by Congressional enactments. Affirmed. For a description of the New York act, see Chamberlain, Inc. v. Andrews, 271 N. Y. 1, 2 N. E. 2d 22; 299 U. S. 515. 289 N. Y. 119, 44 N. E. 2d 391. The employees here, because of the nature of their work, are arguably not within the scope of that portion of admiralty jurisdiction which has been said to be necessarily exclusive. Cf. Davis v. Department of Labor…
• NEW York Tel. Co. v. NEW York State Dep't OF Labor, 566 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …cess rights has been resolved by the Supreme Court. W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc. v. Andrews, 159 Misc. 124, 286 N.Y.S. 242 (Sup.Ct. Onondaga County), modified, 271 N.Y. 1, 2 N.E. 2d 22, aff’d without opinion by an equally divided Court, 299 U.S. 515, 57 S.Ct. 122, 81 L.Ed. 380 (1936). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint. . The parties have stipulated that the term “Bell System”, for the purposes of this lawsuit, in…

  ← 1 / 2 →