Home/Supreme Court/Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

356 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 671, 2 L. Ed. 2d 571, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1353
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 17, 1958
Docket799
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 356 U.S. 41 (Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co., 356 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 671, 2 L. Ed. 2d 571, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1353 (1958).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. We hold that the proofs were sufficient to submit to the jury the question whether employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U. S. 53; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500; Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co., 352 U. S. 512; Shaw v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Futrelle v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 353 U. S. 920; Deen v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 925; Thomson v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 353 U. S. 926; Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U. S. 360; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U. S. 901; McBride v. Toledo Terminal R. Co., 354 U. S. 517; Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18; Honeycutt v. Wabash R. Co., 355 U. S. 424. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is *42 reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18.

For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, Mr. Justice Frankfurter is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.

Mr. Justice Whittaker dissents.

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

Related

Luy v. Baltimore Police Department
326 F. Supp. 2d 682 (D. Maryland, 2004)
Estate of Molina-Velez v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
286 F. Supp. 2d 185 (D. Puerto Rico, 2003)
Pirraglia v. Novell, Inc.
339 F.3d 1182 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Swartz v. Beach
229 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Wyoming, 2002)
Houbigant, Inc. v. Development Specialists, Inc.
229 F. Supp. 2d 208 (S.D. New York, 2002)
DIETL v. Mirage Resorts, Inc.
180 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Nevada, 2002)
Nordbrock v. United States
173 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Arizona, 2001)
Roe v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc.
253 F.3d 678 (Eleventh Circuit, 2001)
Hill v. Goord
63 F. Supp. 2d 254 (E.D. New York, 1999)
Paley v. Estate of Ogus
20 F. Supp. 2d 83 (District of Columbia, 1998)
Bryant v. Locklear
947 F. Supp. 915 (E.D. North Carolina, 1996)
Desai v. Tire Kingdom, Inc.
944 F. Supp. 876 (M.D. Florida, 1996)
Freeman v. Fairman
916 F. Supp. 786 (N.D. Illinois, 1996)
In Re ML-Lee Acquisition Fund II, L.P. & ML-Lee Acquisition Fund (Retirement Accounts) II, L.P. Securities Litigation
848 F. Supp. 527 (D. Delaware, 1994)
Rouse v. Nielsen
851 F. Supp. 717 (D. South Carolina, 1994)
Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc.
802 F. Supp. 1463 (N.D. Texas, 1992)
Stephens v. Coleman
712 F. Supp. 1571 (N.D. Georgia, 1989)
Wilmoth v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co.
486 S.W.2d 631 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1972)
Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad
430 F.2d 697 (Third Circuit, 1970)
Anthony S. Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company
430 F.2d 697 (Third Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 671, 2 L. Ed. 2d 571, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-st-louis-san-francisco-railway-co-scotus-1958.