CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY CO.

v.

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, LOCAL LODGE NO. 721, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1958)
  …e evidence amply sustained the verdicts and that no prejudicial error was committed at the trial, and it affirmed the judgments of conviction. 232 F. 2d 589. Upon petition by Lawn in No. 9, and by Giglio and Livorsi in No. 10, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 865. Because the challenged convictions resulted from a common trial at which petitioners were represented by the same counsel, and because several of the questions presented in each case are similar, the two cases will be decided in one opinion. Petit…
• Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Ind. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1957)
  …926. A permanent injunction [*33] was accordingly entered by the District Court and affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. We granted certiorari in order to resolve an important question concerning interpretation and application of the Railway Labor Act.3 352 U. S. 865. The grievances for which redress is sought by the Brotherhood are admittedly “minor disputes” as that phrase is known in the parlance of the Railway Labor Act. These are controversies over the meaning of an existing collective bargaining agreement…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1957)
  …h a demand would have been futile.” 2 For these reasons the District Court realigned Warner Bros, as a party plaintiff and dismissed the bill. 117 F. Supp. 781. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 237 F. 2d 317. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 352 U. S. 865. This is a corporate cause of action brought by a stockholder. Whether it is a proper case for assertion by a stockholder of that cause of action is not the question here. Such was the problem involved in Hawes v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450, upon which…