Barnett v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
Defendant contends that the district court correctly held that its decision was compelled by the “solicitation” doctrine of Green v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 205 U.S. 530, 27 S.Ct. 595, 51 L.Ed. 916. But in International Harvester v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579, 586, 34 S.Ct. 944, 58 L.Ed. 1479, the Court referred to the Green case as “extreme.” In Hutchinson v. Chase & Gilbert, 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 139, 141, this court, per Judge L. Hand, said: “Possibly the maintenance of a regular agency for the solicitation of business will serve without more. The answer made in Green v. C., B.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Baumgartner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. of Texas v. AlexanderSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Kilpatrick v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- Hayman v. Southern Pacific CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Perkins v. Louisville & N. R. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1951
- Kilpatrick v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.