Legal Opinion

Frye v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 2, 1923No. 23,575PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilson, C. J.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff at Davenport, Iowa, which he claims to hare suffered, while in the employment of the defendant railroad company, as a railway switch foreman, at a time when the parties were engaging-in interstate commerce.

Plaintiff claims that at said time defendant, in violation of its duty imposed by an act of Congress, maintained upon the end of a tender attached to a switch engine, a coupling device which was imperfect, inoperative and dangerous to employes, in this: That said coupler was operated by means of a lever or rod…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. State ex rel. Bossung v. District Court of Hennepin CountySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  3. Hines v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1921
  4. Miller v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. James v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Ehalt v. McCarthyUtah Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Fryer v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  4. Kepner v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1929
  5. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. LundquistSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API