Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Clemence v. Hudson & M. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided April 19, 1926No. 312Published
1ConcurrenceManton, Circuit Judge
I concur in Judge HAND’S views that the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce, and that whether or not he died as a result of electric shock was a jury question. In view of the later utterances of the Supreme Court, our decision in Hudson & Manhattan Co. v. Iorio, 239 F. 855, 152 C. C. A. 641, now relied upon by the defendant in error, is of doubtful authority. This railroad was engaged exclusively in interstate commerce, and what the deceased did was a part of that commerce. The particular work he was doing, as set forth in the prevailing opinion, engaged him in interstate commerce.
A…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pedersen v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Slocum v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Myers v. Pittsburgh Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- New York Life Ins. v. SlocumCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
- Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1912
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.