Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, THIRD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. The case is stated in the opinion.
1DissentJustice Pitney
While concurring substantially in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes, I deem it proper, in view of the momentous consequences of the decision, to present some additional considerations. .
*224This dissent is confined to that part of the prevailing opinion which holds that the Workmen’s Compensation Act of New York, as applied by the state court to a fatal injury sustained by a stevedore while engaged in work of a maritime nature upon navigable water within that State, conflicts with the Constitution of the United States and the act of Congress conferring admiralty and maritime…
2Cases cited102 opinions
- M'culloch v. State of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Martin v. Hunter's LesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- The HarrisburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
97 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.