Legal Opinion

Onley v. Lehigh Valley R.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 9, 1929No. 81PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Bearing in mind that the plaintiff has the burden of showing that he was engaged in] interstate commerce when injured, we find him doing work which itself sheds no light whatever upon the question to be decided. Testing a fire hose on an engine might be employment either in interstate commerce or intrastate commerce, depending upon whether it was so related definitely to one or the other that it formed a part of it. Since the Immediate work he was doing is colorless, we must look for its interstate character, either in what he had previously done or what he…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shanks v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. BehrensSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Erie Railroad Company v. WinfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. WintersSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad v. YurkonisSupreme Court of the United States · 1915

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Young v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  2. Kidder v. Marysville & Arlington Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Castle v. ThomsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Voelker v. Delaware, L. & W. R.District Court, W.D. New York · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API