Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Brown v. Maryland & Pennsylvania Railroad

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 4, 1998Published

1Concurrence

CIRILLO, President Judge Emeritus,

concurring:

I agree with the ultimate result reached by the majority. I write separately, however, to offer an additional reason why the Adamson Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 65-66, does not apply solely to instances where a collective bargaining agreement is in existence.

Unlike the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 151-188, which was enacted to “eliminate the crippling effect of labor disputes that threaten railway interstate commerce,” Espinosa v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 946 F.2d 894 (6th Cir.1991), the Adamson Act (the Act) was enacted as a governmental…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. General Committee v. M.-K.-TR CO.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Wilson v. NewSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. General Committee of Adjustment of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  4. Bank of New England, N.A. v. M L Holding Corporation, Robert Williams and Co., Thorn Apple Valley, IncCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API