KOONS ET AL.

v.

KAISER ET AL.; AND KOONS ET AL. V. KAUFMAN, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Citator

Cited By

• Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957)
  …tes.” 48 Stat. 1191, 45 U. S. C. § 153 First (i). For this reason the decision in Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, is not applicable here. The courts below also relied on Hayes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 184 F. 2d 337, cert. denied, 340 U. S. 942, but for the reasons set forth in the text we believe that case was decided incorresctly. See, e. g., Leimer v. State Mutual Life Assur. Co., 108 F. 2d 302; Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F. 2d 774; Continental Collieries v. Shober, 130 F. 2d 631. Stee…
• Glover v. ST. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 393 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1969)
  …the extent that relief is sought against the railroad for alleged discriminatory performance of an agreement validly entered into and lawful in its terms. See, e. g., Hayes v. Union Pacific R. Co., 184 F. 2d 337 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1950), cert. denied, 340 U. S. 942 (1951). This view, however, was squarely rejected in the Conley case, where we said, “[F]or the reasons set forth in the text we believe [Hayes, supra] was decided incorrectly.” 355 U. S., at 44, n. 4. In this situation no meaningful distinction can…
• In re Complaint and Suit of Samuel Cunningham v. Erie R.R. Co. & United R.R. Workers of Am., Inc., 266 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1959)
  …26 U.S. 561, 66 S.Ct. 322, 90 L.Ed. 318; Johns v. Baltimore & O. R. R., N.D.Ill., 1954, 118 F.Supp. 317, affirmed per curiam, 347 U.S. 964, 74 S.Ct. 776, 98 L.Ed. 1107; and Hayes v. Union Pacific R. R., 9 Cir., 1950, 184 F. 2d 337, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 942, 71 S.Ct. 506, 95 L.Ed. 680, which incidentally was stated by the Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 44, note 4, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed. 2d 80 to have been “decided incorrectly.” This is a question of statutory interpretation. It ma…