State ex rel. Resweber v. Durand
Citations
- 112 La. 754
- 36 So. 672
- 1904 La. LEXIS 460
Syllabus
<p>ELECTIONS — REGISTRATION — DAYS ON WHICH REGISTRATION OFFICE MUST BE KEPT OPEN-HOLIDAYS — MANDAMUS TO REGISTRAR — SUSPENSIVE APPEAL.</p> <p>1. The registrar of voters for the parish of St. Martin having appealed suspensively from an order of the district court directing- him by mandamus to keep his office open for 60 days commencing on January 1, 1904, not including in the 60 days Sundays and holidays, appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as being unauthorized by law.</p> <p>The motion is denied. State ex rel.' Byrnes v. Sommerville, Judge, 34 South. 757, 110 La. 741, is reaffirmed. In appealable cases the right to a suspensive appeal is the rule. The appeal stays execution except in cases specially provided for. Orders of mandamus are not excepted. It is for the legislative department, and not the court, to determine whether they should be.</p> <p>On the Merits.</p> <p>2. Sundays and holidays are included in computing the 60 days during which time the registrar of voters is ordered by Act No. 113 of 1902, p. 183, to hold his office open, commencing on the 1st of January, 1904. Respondent properly closed his office on the 29th of February.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that “[d]efendant’s contention concerning defenses, including whether exemptions from overtime apply, ‘tread too deeply into the merits and are premature without knowing who the actual class members will be’” (quoting Roberts, 2017 WL 1217114, at )
- stating that FLSA does not authorize nationwide service of process, so the Fourteenth Amendment and state law set the limits on the court’s exercise of federal jurisdiction
- stating that FLSA does not authorize nationwide service of process, so the Fourteenth Amendment and state law set the limits on the court’s exercise of federal jurisdiction
- finding that the defendant’s joint-employer argument “involve[d] fact-intensive inquiries that should not be addressed on this undeveloped record and are more appropriate for consideration at stage two of the collective action certification process”
- declining to add language to the notice regarding opt-in plaintiffs’ potential costs and litigation obligations
- “District courts generally have extended the specific jurisdiction principles articulated in Bristol-Myers to the analysis of personal jurisdiction over named plaintiffs in federal class actions.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.