Court Opinion

ID: 310963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-08-23 08:53:01+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:17.230230
License: Public Domain

478 F.2d 702
21 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 109, 21 Wage & HourCas. (BN 316,71 Lab.Cas.  P 32,923
Peter J. BRENNAN, Secretary of Labor, United StatesDepartment of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Edward F. MAULDIN, in his Individual capacity and asAdministrator of the Estate of Leonard S. Preuit,Defendant-Appellee.
No. 72-3517.
United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit.
June 15, 1973.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 7, 1973.

Richard F. Schubert, Sol. of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Sol., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Atlanta, Ga., Sandra P. Bloom, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Norman H. Winston, Associate Regional Sol., George D. Palmer, Atty., U.S. Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., Carin Ann Clauss, Donald S. Shire, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
E. B. Haltom, Jr., Donald H. Patterson, Florence, Ala., for defendant-appellee.
Before AINSWORTH, GODBOLD and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

1
We are in agreement with the well reasoned Memorandum Opinion of the district court, Hodgson v. Mauldin, 344 F. Supp. 302 (1972), and its judgment is affirmed.