Citation network
Baltimore and Ohio R. Co. Vs. Baugh
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1893
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
-
Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. BaughSearch
-
U.S. 368 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. BaughSearch
-
U.S. 368 (1893) Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. BaughSearch
-
for injuries caused, during the running, by the negligence of the engineer. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. RossSearch
-
of a railroad corporation for injuries caused to or by its servants is one of general law. In the case of Swift v. TysonSearch
-
as well as to the judicial branch of the government. This decision was in 1842. Forty years thereafter, in Burgess v. SeligmanSearch
-
cases are cited in which the proposition had been in terms stated or in fact recognized. Since the case of Burgess v. SeligmanSearch
-
but upon the other question -- whether a given matter is one of local or of general law. Thus, in the case of Bucher v. CheshireSearch
-
dispute as to the effect of a state statute, it was still a question of general law. Again, in the case of Detroit v. OsborneSearch
-
that the question was one of a purely local nature. This quotation was made from the opinion in Claiborne County v. BrooksSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
doubt that the responsibility of a railroad company to its employees is a matter of general law. In Railroad Company v. LockwoodSearch
-
such importance to the whole country it was its duty to proceed in the exercise of an independent judgment. In Hough v. RailwaySearch
-
In Myrick v. MichiganSearch
-
of its own judgment placed a different construction upon the contract. And in the recent case of Railway Company v. PrenticeSearch
-
Not only that, but in the cases of Wabash Railway v. McDanielsSearch
-
Randall v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Railway v. RossSearch
-
was sustained by this Court, was in direct opposition to the rulings of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. Thus, in Brown v. WinonaSearch
-
The same doctrine was announced in Brown v. MinneapolisSearch
-
St. Louis Railway, 32 Minn. 54, both decided before the Ross case, and reaffirmed since in Gonsior v. MinneapolisSearch
-
by that law. Indeed, the Ohio court is not wholly satisfied with that doctrine, as appears from the cases of Whaalan v. MadSearch
-
Railway v. DevinneySearch
-
factors in such a question. Counsel for defendant in error rely principally upon the case of Railroad Co. v. RossSearch
-
And also from Malone v. HathawaySearch
-
Railroad v. MooreSearch
-
are constantly arising in the courts. It is enough, however, to refer to those in this Court. In the cases of Hough v. RailwaySearch
-
Company, 100 U. S. 213 , and Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSearch
-
it was affirmed that the servant assumed all the risks ordinarily incident to his employment. In Railroad Company v. FortSearch
-
counted the negligence of fellow servants in the same employment. In the cases of Page 149 U. S. 389 Randall v. BaltSearch
-
Ohio Railroad, 109 U. S. 478 , and Quebec Steamship Co. v. MerchantSearch
-
and yet, with this knowledge, and without protest, he voluntarily rode on the engine with the engineer. Hammond v. RailwaySearch
-
Railway Company v. LeachSearch
-
Wescott v. RailroadSearch
-
as said in Wheaton v. PetersSearch
-
it has been settled there for many years. In Little Miami Railroad v. StevensSearch
-
Railroad v. KearySearch
-
participation, and no servants were fellow servants when one was placed in control over the other. In Berea Stone Co. v. KraftSearch
-
and followed by the federal courts in determining causes of action affected by it arising within the state. Bucher v. CheshireSearch
-
is held admissible for the purpose of defeating the jurisdiction of a federal court. Louisville Railroad Co. v. LetsonSearch
-
Cowles v. MercerSearch
-
Steamship Co. v. TugmanSearch
-
by a fiction, and then, by what the Court terms the general law of the country, but which this Court held in Wheaton v. PetersSearch
-
Collector v. DaySearch
-
Respublica v. CobbetSearch
-
Commonwealth v. PittsburghSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial