Citation network
C and O Ry. Vs. Schwalb
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 28, 1989
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
C & O Ry. v. SchwalbSearch
-
U.S. 40 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court C & O Ry. v. SchwalbSearch
-
U.S. 40 (1989) Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. SchwalbSearch
-
relevant situs if it is an integral or essential part of loading or unloading a vessel, Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
P.C. Pfeiffer Page 493 U. S. 41 Co. v. FordSearch
-
and reversed the dismissals. 235 Va. 27, 365 S.E.2d 742 (1988). Relying on one of its earlier decisions, White v. NorfolkSearch
-
on ships. 235 Va. at 31, 365 S.E.2d at 744. Pointing to expressions in our opinion in Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
Virginia's holding in these cases was contrary to the position adopted by Federal Courts of Appeals, see, e.g., Harmon v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. DirectorSearch
-
Hullinghorst Industries, Inc. v. CarrollSearch
-
Garvey Grain Co. v. DirectorSearch
-
Prolerized New England Page 493 U. S. 45 Co. v. BenefitsSearch
-
expressly includes the specified occupations, but obviously is not limited to those callings. Herb's Welding, Inc. v. GraySearch
-
P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. FordSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a), 98 Stat. 1639. In Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
such tasks are not covered. Id. at 432 U. S. 267 . This has been our consistent view. P. C. Pfeiffer Co. v. FordSearch
-
compensation under the Act. Id., 444 U.S. at 444 U. S. 82 . We also reiterated in Herb's Welding, Inc. v. GraySearch
-
S. 47 maritime employment, respondents are nevertheless covered by the LHWCA. See Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
and the Benefits Review Board also has consistently taken this view. See, e.g., Wuellet v. ScappooseSearch
-
De Robertis v. OceanicSearch
-
Cabezas v. OceanicSearch
-
doctrine this Court articulated in Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
Id. at 432 U. S. 273 Later, in P.C. Pfeiffer Co. v. FordSearch
-
the interpretation of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Act that the Supreme Court of Virginia adopted in White v. NorfolkSearch
-
and that the Act's history in no way clouds the text's plain import. See Director, OWCP v. PeriniSearch
-
course of decision has established a reasonably clear rule of law that I feel bound to respect. Cf. Commissioner v. FinkSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court C & O Ry. v. SchwalbSearch
-
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. SchwalbSearch
-
Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
Co. v. FordSearch
-
White v. NorfolkSearch
-
Harmon v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Co. v. BenefitsSearch
-
In Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
the LHWCA. See Northeast Marine Terminal Co. v. CaputoSearch
-
Wuellet v. ScappooseSearch
-
See Director, OWCP v. PeriniSearch
-
Cf. Commissioner v. FinkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial