Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company

D.C. Circuit

Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company

236 F.2d 666

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1956

Docket12991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 F.2d 666 (Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arthur C. Amos v. The Pullman Company, 236 F.2d 666 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alleging that he was injured while repairing railroad sleeping cars in the course of his employment by appellee, appellant brought this suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, as amended, which is applicable to “every common carrier by railroad * * 1 The District Court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on its view that the uncontroverted affidavit of appellee's vice-president established that appellee was not a “common carrier by railroad.” On this appeal appellant insists that whether or not appellee is subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act remains a genuine issue of material fact and must therefore be tried. We think the District Court was clearly right. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 1920, 254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; Taylor v. New York Central R. Co., 1945, 294 N.Y. 397, 404, 62 N.E.2d 777, 780; Latsko v. National Carloading Corp., 6 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 905, 909; S.Rep.No. 661, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1939).

Affirmed.

1

. 53 Stat. 1404 (1939), 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Alleging that he was injured while repairing railroad sleeping cars in the course of his employment by appellee, appellant brought this suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, as amended, which is applicable to “every common carrier by railroad * * 1 The District Court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on its view that the uncontroverted affidavit of appellee's vice-president established that appellee was not a “common carrier by railroad.” On this appeal appellant insists that whether or not appellee is subject to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act remains a genuine issue of material fact and must therefore be tried. We think the District Court was clearly right. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 1920, 254 U.S. 175, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; Taylor v. New York Central R. Co., 1945, 294 N.Y. 397, 404, 62 N.E.2d 777, 780; Latsko v. National Carloading Corp., 6 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 905, 909; S.Rep.No. 661, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1939).

Affirmed.

1

. 53 Stat. 1404 (1939), 45 U.S.C.A. § 51.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 F.2d 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-c-amos-v-the-pullman-company-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack