Legal Opinion
McCalmont v. Pennsylvania R.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 4, 1922No. 3603PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDenison, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The Safety Appliance Act does not in terms forbid all,movements of a defective car. It directs the carrier not to “haul or permit to be hauled or used on Its line any car, etc.” This forbids hauling “on the line” and using “on the, line”; and it might well be thought that the prohibition did not apply at all to merely yard movements (see Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. U. S., 249 U. S. 534, 39 Sup. Ct. 355, 63 L. Ed. 757), and particularly to the movement from one place to another in a yard of bad-order cars which had been set out of use and!…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. RigsbySupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. WilesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. GotschallSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. LaytonSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. ConartySupreme Court of the United States · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Davis v. WolfeSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co. v. LearyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1953
- Paster v. Pennsylvania R. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
- Orton v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1925
- Lyle v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1949
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.