PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.

v.

DAY, ADMINISTRATOR

Citator

Cited By

• Baker v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 359 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1959)
  …death as tp entitle him to the protection of the Act. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the respondent, 309 S. W. 2d 92, and the Texas Supreme Court refused an application for a writ of error. We granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 878, to investigate whether such an issue is properly one for determination by the. jury. The Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not use the terms “employee” and “employed” in any special sense, Robinson v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 237 U. S. 84, 94,…
• Pa. R.R. Co. v. Day, 360 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1959)
  …95. The Court of Appeals reversed, 258 F. '2d 62, holding that the determination by the Board of claims to which respondent was not a party was n'tet binding on him, and that the District Court had jurisdiction over the claim. We granted certiorari, 358 U. S. 878, since- this decision raised an important question in the administration of the Railway Labor Act of 1934. That Act, 48 Stat. 1185, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., established a broad framework, for the regula^ [*550] tion and adjustment of industrial co…
• Melrose Distillers, Inc. v. United States, 359 U.S. 271 (U.S. 1959)
  …itioners then pleaded nolo contendere and the District Court levied fines against them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 258 F. 2d 726. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of a conflict among the Circuits.1 358 U. S. 878. We start from the premise that in the federal domain prosecutions abate both on the death of an individual defendant (List v. Pennsylvania, 131 U. S. 396; Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U. S. 76) and on the dissolution of a corporate defendant (Defen…