Legal Opinion
Neece v. Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided September 18, 1957No. 738PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
The loss which plaintiff sustained results from a movement of goods in interstate commerce; hence, the rights of the parties must be determined by the application of appropriate Federal statutes. St. Sing v. Express Co., 183 N.C. 405, 111 S.E. 710; Scott v. Express Co., 189 N.C. 377, 127 S.E. 252; Crompton v. Baker, 220 N.C. 52, 16 S.E. 2d 471.
Congress, by the Interstate Commerce Act (Part I, 49 USCA 1-37) enacted in 1906, sanctioned a limitation of liability by carriers subject to the Act. Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 57 L. Ed. 314; Boston & M. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97, 58…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. HookerSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. NothnagleSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Railroad Co. v. FraloffSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Union Pacific Railroad v. BurkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Griffin v. Nationwide Moving & Storage Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Clott v. GREYHOUND LINES, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Jordan v. EASTERN TRANSIT & STORAGE COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Neff v. Queen City Coach Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- Clott v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.