FOGEL

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer & Co., Inc., 349 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1955)
  …ose under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. A prerequisite to the application of either Act was that the employee be engaged in commerce. This rule came to be known as the “new construction rule” and was applied by this Court in Murphey v. Reed, 335 U. S. 865. It was also applied by the First Circuit in Nieves v. Standard Dredging Corp., 152 F. 2d 719, where the employer was dredging a channel for navigation in a previously nonnavigable stream. The Second Circuit in Scholl v. McWilliams Dredging Co., 169…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Mitchell v. H. B. Zachry Co., 362 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1960)
  …en circuits. (See Chambers Construction Co. v. Mitchell, 233 F. 2d 717, and Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 214 F. 2d 515.) The court below, in applying its rule excluding “construction,” relied on our per curiam decision in Murphey v. Reed, 335 U. S. 865, and distinguished the more detailed decision in Mitchell v. Vollmer & Co., 349 U. S. 427, which expressly rejected the “new construction” rule and held construction of a new lock on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to be covered employment. It did so…
• United States v. Stirone, 262 F.2d 571 (3d Cir. 1958)
  …onception of activity affecting the production of goods for commerce to the construction of new plants intended solely for the future production of goods for interstate distribution. The vitality of this concept is attested by Murphey v. Reed, 1948, 335 U.S. 865, 69 S.Ct. 105, 93 L.Ed. 410, and a comment on that decision in Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer & Co. supra, 349 U.S. at 430, note 2, 75 S.Ct. at page 862. It seems to me that the special aversion of the criminal law for speculative conclusions in the cha…