Legal Opinion
Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Harrelson
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided September 25, 1926No. 7243PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KENYON, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff in error (for convenience designated in this opinion as defendant) is a common carrier of passengers and freight.
William Brooks Harrelson, a minor, who was between 9 and 10 years of age at the time of the occurrence in question, is defendant in error (but will be designated as plaintiff, the ease being brought against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company by his father, Howard M. Harrelson, as his next friend”).
August 1, 1922, plaintiff was a passenger on a train of defendant, en route from Des Moines, Iowa, to Spirit Lake, Iowa. He was in the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. EarnestSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- McDermott v. SevereSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- New Jersey Steamboat Co. v. BrockettSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Edward Earl Brooks v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1962
- Lahman v. Burnes Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Addis v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1932
- Elizabeth Ditrich v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1957
- Bronstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.