HONEYCUTT
v.
WABASH RAILWAY CO.

U.S. | 1958-01-27
No. 639
whom Mr. Justice Whittaker joins, concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18.
355 U.S. 424 Supreme Court of the United States (1958) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 2 L. Ed. 2d 380 · 78 S. Ct. 393 · 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1586 · SCDB 1957-046
Cited by 27 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals of the State of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U. S. 521; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.

Concurrence
Mr. Justice Harlan,

Mr. Justice Harlan,

whom Mr. Justice Whittaker joins, concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18.

For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sinkler v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 356 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1958)
    …exas & 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. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41; Butler v. Whiteman, 356 U. S. 271. Although the Court in footnote 2 of its opinion refers to the jury’s special finding that Belt Railway was under the “control and supervision” of responde…
  • Harris v. Pa. R.R. Co., 361 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1959)
    …ic R. Co., 353 U. S. 926. McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517. Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co., 354 U. S. 901. 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. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41. Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U. S. 326. Moore v. Terminal R. Assn., 358 U. S. 31. Baker et al. v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 359 U. S. 227. Conner v. Butler, post, p. 29. Harris…
  • Moore v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n of ST. Louis, 358 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1958)
    …s & 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; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424; Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41. Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18, 19. See also his dissenting opinion in Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. C…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw