United States v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
District Court, W.D. Louisiana
1Opinion of the Court
DAWKINS, District Judge.
This is an.action by the government on 12 counts to recover of the defendant the sum of $100 in each instance for the violation of, the Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 531 [Comp. St. §§ 8605-8812]), as amended by Act approved April 1, 1896 (29 Stat. 85 [Comp. St. § 8610]), and as further amended by the Act of March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. 943 [Comp. St. §§ 8613-8615]). The jury has been waived and the case sub*723mitted upon an agreed statement of facts. The sole question, therefore, is one of law, and that is: Does the statute apply where the equipment moves…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Southern Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
- United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- (SS) Badillo v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- Rendon v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
- United States v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950