Wabash R. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. These cases arise under.the safety appliance acts. The first, second, and fourth sections of Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531. (TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174),- are as .follows: “Section i.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of Illinois. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. These cases arise under.the safety appliance acts. The first, second, and fourth sections of Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531. (TJ. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174),- are as .follows: “Section i. That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Do the words in the second section of the act of 18.93, “any car used in moving interstate traffic,” mean that a car is subject to the statute only during the time it is actually employed in moving interstate traffic, or that every car is within the act if it is customarily or repeatedly employed in such movements? Both meanings are within the dictionary definitions of “used,” and, if regard were paid only to the rule that a penal statute should be strictly construed, the narrower meaning might be taken. But a penal statute, or one in derogation of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. BaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. ArringtonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1919
- United Transportation Union v. Drew Lewis, Secretary of TransportationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Watson v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas · 1909
- Erie R. v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
- Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. KingCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1909
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.