MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.

NELSON

Citator

Cited By (58 total)

• Stearns & Culver Lumber Co. v. Fowler, 58 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1909)
  …mere fellow-servant or co-employee “of such servant, where the fellow-servant or co-employee does not sustain this representative relation to the master. Atchison, Topeka &c. Railroad v. Moore, 29 Kan. 632, text 644; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 914, The above enumeration of the master’s duties towards his employees is not exhaustive or complete, but is merely illustrative. Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609, 56 S. E. Rep. 839, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772. An employer…
• Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)
  …nature or “general,” be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts. And no clause-in the Constitution purports to confer such a power upon the federal courts. As stated by Mr. Justice Field when protesting in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 401, against ignoring the Ohio common law of fellow servant liability: “I am aware that what has been termed the general law of the country — which is often little less than what the judge advancing the doctrine thinks at the time should be the ge…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• FAY v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963)
  …I submit, marks the constitutional limit of our power in this sphere. The reason why this is so was perhaps most articulately expressed in a different but closely related context by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 401. He stated, in a passage quoted with approval by the Court in the historic decision in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, 78-79: “[T]he Constitution of the United States . . . recognizes and preserves the autonomy and independence of the S…