GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ANNA ROACH, AS ADMINISTRATRIX, ETC.

U.S. | 1917-02-05
No. 695
242 U.S. 624 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed with costs upon the authority of Chicago Junction Railway Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Padgett, 236 U. S. 668; Great Northern Railway Co. v. Knapp, 240 U. S. 464; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Whitacre, ante, 169. Mr. A. L. Janes, Mr. E. C. Lindley and Mr. M. L. Countryman for the plaintiff in error. Mr. Ernest W. Michel and Mr. Tom Davis for the defendant in error.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Beausoliel v. United States, 107 F.2d 292 (D.C. Cir. 1939)
    …Chicago & N. W. Ry., 194 Wis. 480, 486, 215 N.W. 908, 910; Soto v. Territory, 12 Ariz. 36, 94 P. 1104; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Haislup, 39 Ind.App. 394, 79 N.E. 1035; Roach v. Great Northern Ry., 133 Minn. 257, 158 N.W. 232, affirmed 242 U.S. 624, 37 S.Ct. 245, 61 L.Ed. 534; 3 Wigmore, Evidence (2d ed. 1923) § 1750. Hobbs v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 117 SW. 811; Smith v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co., 326 Mo. 109, 128, 30 S.W. 2d 1077, 1086. But see Cumberland Gasoline Corp. v. Fi…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw