MCCAFFREY

v.

ROYALL, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; AND MCCAFFREY V. ROYALL, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Citator

Cited By

• Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)
  …48 Term. Eckenrode v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 335 U. S. 329; affirmance of judgment n. o. v. for defendant affirmed. Coray v. Southern Pacific Co., 335 U. S. 520; affirmance of directed verdict for defendant reversed. Penn v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 335 U. S. 849;* reversal of judgment for plaintiff reversed. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53; affirmance of directed verdict for defendant reversed. [*558] Reynolds v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 336 U. S. 207;* affirmance of judgment for defendant on demurr…
• S. Pac. Co. v. Mahl, 406 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …ends of the cars. Stated another way: In order to establish that the coupler was defective, proof of the necessity of going between the cars is not required. We find ample authority to support our holding. In Penn v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 1948, 335 U.S. 849, 69 S.Ct. 79, 93 L.Ed. 398, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment entered under the Safety Appliance Act in favor of an employee who was injured when his foot slipped into a space at a switch stand after several unsuccessful attempts to uncouple two…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Fritts v. Toledo Terminal R.R. Co., 293 F.2d 361 (6th Cir. 1961)
  …and as evidence when they are given by experienced rail [*364] road men and are based on their preceptions at the time of an accident. Myers v. Reading Co., 1947, 331 U.S. 477, 67 S.Ct. 1334, 91 L.Ed. 1615; Penn v. Chicago & Northwestern R. R. Co., 335 U.S. 849, 69 S.Ct. 79, 93 L.Ed. 398, reversing 7 Cir., 163 F. 2d 995. Yard Foreman Elieff testified the frog in question which had been in use for more than five years was removed and placed on the “partly worn” pile. To bolster the testimony of the plaintif…