Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Barlow

244 U.S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. 1070, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1623
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 21, 1917
Docket194
StatusPublished
Cited by61 cases

This text of 244 U.S. 183 (Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Barlow) 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
Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Barlow, 244 U.S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. 1070, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1623 (1917).

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Basing his claim upon the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, defendant in- error sought damages for personal injuries. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in his favor, 214 N. Y. 116, and the question now presented is whether there is evidence tending to show that he was injured while engaging in interstate commerce. The accident occurred July 27, 1912, when, as member of a switching crew, he was assisting in placing three cars containing supply coal for plaintiff in error on an unloading trestle within its yards at Cortland, New York. These *184 cars belonged to it and with their contents had passed over its line from Sayre, Pennsylvania. After being received in the Cortland yards — one July 3 and two July 10— they remained there upon sidings and switches until removed to the trestle on the' twenty-seventh.

We think their interstate movement terminated before the cars left the sidings, and that while removing them the switching crew was not employed in interstate commerce. The essential facts in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, did not materially differ from those now presented. There we sustained a recovery by an employee, holding he was not engaged in interstate commerce; and that decision is in conflict with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. The judgment under review must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

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

Related

Walling v. Consumers Co.
149 F.2d 626 (Seventh Circuit, 1945)
Delcour v. Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Co.
182 Misc. 289 (New York Supreme Court, 1943)
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Utah
83 P.2d 270 (Utah Supreme Court, 1938)
Hamarstrom v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co.
116 S.W.2d 280 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1938)
Fluitt v. New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co.
174 So. 163 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1937)
LaRue v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad
6 N.E.2d 284 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1937)
McMullen v. Pennsylvania Railroad
242 A.D. 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Wetterer v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
277 Ill. App. 275 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1934)
Saunders v. Boston & Maine Railroad
191 N.E. 381 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Aldridge v. Wabash Railway Co.
73 S.W.2d 401 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1934)
Crysel v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
152 So. 375 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)
Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R.
3 F. Supp. 376 (E.D. New York, 1933)
Boyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
159 A. 909 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1932)
Boyer v. Pennsylvania Railroad
162 Md. 328 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1932)
Owens v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.
46 S.W.2d 900 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Watson v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Co.
45 S.W.2d 499 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Cruse v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
299 P. 624 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1931)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown
134 So. 643 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Wise v. Lehigh Valley R.
43 F.2d 692 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Jolly's Administratrix
23 S.W.2d 564 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 U.S. 183, 37 S. Ct. 515, 61 L. Ed. 1070, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lehigh-valley-railroad-v-barlow-scotus-1917.