GREAT AMERICAN INDEMNITY CO. ET AL.

v.

BRITTON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Rutland Ry. Corp. v. Bhd. OF Locomotive Eng'rs, 307 F.2d 21 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …04 (1959) is precisely on point and explicitly supports my view of the statute. I do not grasp how it may be disposed of simply by asserting the facts are different.18 As for Hilbert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 290 F. 2d 881 (7 Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 96 (1961), relied on by the majority, I would decline to follow it since it also seems based on the erroneous notion that Section 6 is inoperative when the existing agreement is ambiguous. My reading of the statute and of s…

  ← 1 / 5 →
• Westchester Lodge 2186 v. Ry. Express Agency, 329 F.2d 748 (2d Cir. 1964)
  …. Nothing in the Norris-La-Guardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 104 (1958), prevents a federal court from issuing an injunction to require a carrier to retain the status quo. Hilbert v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 290 F. 2d 881, 884 (7 Cir. 1961), cert. denied 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 174, 7 L.Ed.2d 96 (1961). Nor do we find anything in the Railway Labor Act which prohibits a federal court from issuing an injunction to restore the status quo in a minor dispute if the court’s discretion is soundly exercised to preserve…
• Wirtz v. B. B. Saxon Co., Inc., 365 F.2d 457 (5th Cir. 1966)
  …See Mitchell v. Lublin et al., supra; General Electric Company v. Porter, 208 F. 2d 805 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 347 U.S. 951, 74 S.Ct. 676, 98 L.Ed. 1097 (1954); Goldberg v. Five Boro Construction Corporation, 291 F. 2d 371 (1st Cir.), cert denied 368 U.S. 900, 82 S.Ct. 179, 7 L.Ed.2d 95 (1961). I therefore dissent.…