Legal Opinion
Hamilton v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Decided November 29, 1926No. 28164PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSt. Paul, J.
The defendant is a common carrier by railroad, and, although its own line does not extend beyond the limits of the state, yet it connects at both termini with other lines which do extend beyond the state, and a large volume of both interstate and intrastate commerce flows over its rails. Defendant is therefore actually engaged in interstate commerce; and the relative volume of the one business to the other has no-bearing on the fact that it is so engaged. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Polk, 256 U. S. 332, 41 S. Ct. 518, 65 L. Ed. 958; Chicago K. & S. R. Co. v. Kindlesparker (C. C. A.) 234 F. 1.
I
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- New York Central Railroad Company v. WinfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Railway Co. v. SealeSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Southern Railway Co. v. PuckettSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Higginbotham v. Public Belt Railroad CommissionLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1938
- Guillot v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1928
- Rainwater v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1945
- Bordelon v. N. O. Terminal Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1930
- Peterson v. L. R. & N. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.