Chicago & E. R. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
The question raised is: Was the handling in question of its freight ears by the Erie Railroad, at Huntington, Ind., a switching operation, or was it a “train movement,” within the meaning of section 2 of the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. p. 943 [45 USCA § 9; Comp. St. § 8614])?
We are in serious doubt as to whether the record presents anything for review, but that question has not been raised by the parties. What are switching operations, and what are train movements, within the meaning of the Safety Appliance statutes, has many times been presented to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. Erie Railroad CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Illinois Cent. R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1926
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1946
- United States v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
- United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1947
- United States v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.