Virginian Ry. Co. v. Linkous

235 F. 49, 148 C.C.A. 543, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2162
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 8, 1916·No. No. 1379·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge.

The above-entitled cause was decided at the November term, 1915, of this court, the court holding that the defendant in error, under the circumstances, was not entitled to recover. A petition for rehearing was presented December 25, 1915, and the case was reargued at this term.

Having fully discussed the question as to whether the injury of the defendant in error was due in whole or in part to the negligence of a fellow servant, in the opinion heretofore announced, we do not now deem it necessary to enter into a further discussion of that phase of the case. After a careful consideration of the contention of counsel for defendant in error, as well as the authorities cited, we think that the decision of this court in the first instance was correct.

Therefore we adhere to our former opinion, reversing the lower court.

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

Virginian Ry. Co. v. Linkous, 235 F. 49, 148 C.C.A. 543, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2162 (4th Cir. 1916).

235 F. 49 (Virginian Ry. Co. v. Linkous) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Youngblood v. Southern Ry. Co.
134 S.E. 660 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Davis v. Sorrell
104 So. 397 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Wash., B. A. El. R. Co. v. Cook
125 A. 172 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1924)
Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railroad v. Cook
144 Md. 324 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1924)
Davis v. Payne
216 P. 195 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
Pheasant v. Director General of Railroads
285 F. 342 (Third Circuit, 1922)
Linkous v. Virginian Ry. Co.
242 F. 916 (Fourth Circuit, 1917)