Skip to main content

Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry

W.D.N.Y.December 18, 2003No. 03-CV-457-ACited 13 times
DismissedPerry

Case Details

Judge(s)
Arcara
Nature of Suit
710 Fair Labor Standards Act
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
2nd Circuit appeal
Circuit
2nd Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

What This Ruling Means

**Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry: Wage and Hour Case Dismissed** This case involved a dispute between an employee named Centeno-Bernuy and their employer, Perry, over wages and work hours. The worker claimed that Perry violated wage and hour laws, which typically means issues like unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, or other pay-related problems. The court dismissed the case in December 2003, meaning the judge threw out the worker's claims without awarding any money or other relief. When a case is dismissed, it means the court found the worker either failed to prove their case or had legal problems with how they brought the lawsuit. **What This Means for Workers:** This outcome shows that winning wage and hour cases requires strong evidence and proper legal procedures. Workers who believe their employer has violated wage laws should carefully document their hours, pay stubs, and any communications about wages. Simply claiming a violation occurred isn't enough - workers need proof to support their case in court. If you think your employer owes you wages or overtime, consider consulting with an employment attorney who can help evaluate whether you have a strong case before filing a lawsuit.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Haslerig
M.D. Tenn.Jul 2022
Unresolvable
Ballard
Unknown CourtDec 1866

<p>Appeal from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. Fielding Jones, one of the district judges.</p> <p>This was an action of trespass to try title, and was originally instituted by E: W. Perry, in the District Court of Lavaca county. The property in controversy was a league and labor of land lying in the latter county. The petition was filed on the 15th of April, 1856, against C. Ballard and some ten other persons as defendants. The plaintiff’s title will be found sufficiently described in the case of Howard v. Perry, 7 Tex., 259, in which case the present plaintiff was the defendant. Howard and wife, the plaintiffs in that suit, were made defendants in this, and it was alleged in the petition that the other defendants claimed under them. The case in 7 Texas shows the character of the imperfect grant to Hibbins, under which the Howards claimed, and of which mention is made by the court in this case.</p> <p>The case, as there decided, turned upon the inchoate of imperfect character of the Hibbins grant, and it is one of the precedents which holds, that such grants were at most but equities against the conscience of the body politic, and not titles which were recognized by the constitution and laws of the republic of Texas, so as to give them judicial standing in the courts. (Paschal’s Dig., Note 150, p. 40.) It was then also decided, that the chief clerk of the general land office, in the absence of the commissioner, &c., may certify an archive or record in the general land office; and that, having certified, the presumption is that the contingency contemplated by the statute existed. (Id., Note 209, p. 72.) A point was also decided in reference to the equities of settlers and locators. (Id., Note 985, p. 722.) And it was also here first ruled, that the printed hook of recommended certificates, if published by authority, may he evidence for some purposes, hut does not furnish the proof upon which the surveyor is required to act; but that the act is directory, and

Mixed Result
Zelaya
E.D.N.C.Feb 1998
Dismissed
Villalva Estrada v. Giovanni's Italian Eatery, Inc.
S.D.N.Y.Aug 2020
Settlement
W.D.N.Y.Dec 2025
Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.