Randolph v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.
District Court, W.D. Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
REEVES, District Judge.
It is unnecessary to discuss again the issues involved in this case. At the hearing on the question of a temporary injunction there was no substantial dispute on the facts. Admittedly the plaintiffs, both by custom and contract, performed for the corporate defendants specified services for which they were compensated and enjoyed over a long period of years valuable privileges, emoluments and rights.
At the instance of the individual defendants acting through their authorized officer or officers the corporate defendants (with apparent reluctance) evinced a purpose to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- 51 Fair empl.prac.cas. 394, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 39,104 George E. Harvey, Sr., by His Personal Representative John H. Blankenbaker Leslie B. Calvin Mose A. Covington Alfred E. Lyons Lonnie L. Moore Victor Powell William A. Smith Martin H. Tuggle T.F. Vanwinkle Earl O. Walker Green Junior Wallace William H. Zanders Homer Jackson Eugene E. Bunch and James G. Bunch, All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Ray E. Landrum, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. United Transportation Union Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989
- Sears v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1978
- Randolph v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1948
- Harvey v. United Transportation UnionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1989