Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis

Supreme Court

Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis

358 U.S. 31, 79 S. Ct. 2, 3 L. Ed. 2d 24, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 328

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 13, 1958

Docket208

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 358 U.S. 31 (Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis) 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

Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis, 358 U.S. 31, 79 S. Ct. 2, 3 L. Ed. 2d 24, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 328 (1958).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. 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 [32]*32Coast 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; Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18, 19. See also his dissenting opinion in Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U. S. 326, 332.

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 was improvidently granted.

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

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury’s conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner’s injury. 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 [32]*32Coast 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; Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 356 U. S. 41.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18, 19. See also his dissenting opinion in Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 356 U. S. 326, 332.

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 was improvidently granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 U.S. 31, 79 S. Ct. 2, 3 L. Ed. 2d 24, 1958 U.S. LEXIS 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-terminal-railroad-assn-of-st-louis-scotus-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack