Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Second Circuit

Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

323 F.2d 996

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 18, 1963

DocketNo. 79, Docket 28158

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 323 F.2d 996 (Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rodgers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 323 F.2d 996 (2d Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment below in open court.

From the testimony of plaintiff in his deposition below it is clear that the accident suffered by him occurred under such circumstances that his sole and exclusive remedy was under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The complaint below alleged jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. O’Rourke, 344 U.S. 334, 73 S.Ct. 302, 97 L.Ed. 367 (1952).

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the judgment below in open court.

From the testimony of plaintiff in his deposition below it is clear that the accident suffered by him occurred under such circumstances that his sole and exclusive remedy was under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The complaint below alleged jurisdiction by virtue of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Thus, the motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. O’Rourke, 344 U.S. 334, 73 S.Ct. 302, 97 L.Ed. 367 (1952).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 F.2d 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-baltimore-ohio-railroad-ca2-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack