Legal Opinion
Schroble v. Lehigh Valley R.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 6, 1933No. 8PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND,
Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The defendant contends that the judgment should be reversed because (a) there was no proof of any violation of the Safety Appliance Acts; (b) there was no proof of negligence; and (e) there were various errors in the exclusion of evidence and in the judge’s charge.
The violation of the Safety Appliance Acts which plaintiff relies on is apparently based on sections 1, 3, and 9 of title 45 of the United States Code (45 USCA §§ 1, 3, 9). Section 1 requires that no train shall be run which has not a sufficient number of ears in it…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sweeney v. ErvingSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Southern Railway-Carolina Division v. BennettSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- New York Central Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Erie R. Co. v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
3Cited by11 opinions
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. GreenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1947
- Benedict v. Eppley Hotel Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1954
- Atkin F. Seltzer and Helen Seltzer, His Wife v. William W. Chesley, Jr., as Special Administrator of the Estate of Linda Joyce Berryhill, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
- Moreau v. Pennsylvania R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Brennan v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.