THOMSON
v.
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.
THOMSON
TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.
353 U.S. 926
Supreme Court of the United States (1957)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 1 L. Ed. 2d 722 · 77 S. Ct. 698 · SCDB 1956-070 · 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1087
Cited by 65 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, 352 U. S. 521. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded. Mr. Justice Frankfurter would dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. See his dissent in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Whit-taker dissent for the reasons given in Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 559.
Beverly Tarpley argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief were Dallas Scarborough and Davis Scarborough. J. B. Look argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John B. Pope.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Sinkler v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 356 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1958)…guson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U. S. 521; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line [*333] R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, Colorado & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & P. R. Co., 353 U. S. 926; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Stinson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 355 U. S. 62; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424; Ferguson v. St.…
-
Rutland Ry. Corp. v. Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs, 307 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1962)…. There is some doubt whether a federal court has power to issue an anti-strike injunction in a minor dispute before the [*33] matter is submitted to the Railroad Adjustment Board. Of. Manion v. Kansas City Terminal Ry., 353 U.S. 927, 77 S.Ct. 706, 1 L.Ed.2d 722 (1957); Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R.R., 290 E\2d 881 (7 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 96 (1961). But inasmuch as the Rutland Railway has submitted the present controversy to the Board, we are not here faced with this probl…
-
Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1957)…512; Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U. S. 521; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926; Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 360; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517. For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500,…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rogers v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1957)
- Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1957)
- Webb v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 512 (U.S. 1957)