United States v. Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The case is stated in. the opinion. in support of the contention that the Terminal is not a common carrier, — because it is' not organized and does not hold itself out as such, and because its relations are not with shippers or consignees, but only with the carriers 'with which it chooses to contract, and its obligations are wholly to the latter and not at all to the former— cited the following: United States…
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. The case is stated in. the opinion. in support of the contention that the Terminal is not a common carrier, — because it is' not organized and does not hold itself out as such, and because its relations are not with shippers or consignees, but only with the carriers 'with which it chooses to contract, and its obligations are wholly to the latter and not at all to the former— cited the following: United States v. Ramsey, 197 Fed. •Rep. 144; Jackson Iron Works v. Hurlbút, 158 N. Y. 34, 38; United States v. Union Pacific R. R.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bbandeis
The Hours of Service Act (March 4, 1907, c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415) 1 prohibits any common carrier by railroad en gaged in interstate commerce from requiring or permitting an employee to remain on duty for a longer period than sixteen consecutive hours. For alleged violation of this provision, proceedings were brought against the Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The defendant contended that it was not a common carrier;, that it was not engaged in interstate commerce by railroad; and that its employees were not…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Terminal Taxicab Co. v. KutzSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co. of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- United States v. Erie Railroad CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- United States v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Lone Star Steel Company v. Lois McGeeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Weade v. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Locust Cartage Co., Inc. v. Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- McKay v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1939
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.