Boston & M. R. R. v. Daniel
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMayer, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The cause was carefully tried, and objections were made and exceptions taken by counsel for defendant in timely and accurate fashion. These exceptions present clearly certain vital questions in the case, which render unnecessary a detailed statement as to the circumstances of the accident. It is sufficient to state that, if defendant railroad came within the statute (General Laws of Vermont, § 5173), the jury was justified in finding that it did not perform its statutory duty. In such circumstances, and passing by some questions raised as to the reception…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bacon v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- French v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1904
- Harrington v. Rutland RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Reynolds v. Great Northern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Carter v. Central Vermont RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1900
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State of California v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
- Peterson v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Nixon v. EdwardsWyoming Supreme Court · 1953
- Pacheco v. New York, N. H. & H. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1926
- Hershel Krasnow v. National Airlines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1955
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.