Citation network
Pullman Co. Vs. Jenkins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 16, 1939
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
-
U.S. 534 (1939) U.S. Supreme Court Pullman Co. v. JenkinsSearch
-
U.S. 534 (1939) Pullman Company v. JenkinsSearch
-
one, was to be determined according to the plaintiffs' pleading at the time of the petition for removal. Barney v. LathamSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. WangelinSearch
-
Page 305 U. S. 538 Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers'Search
-
Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. RedSearch
-
may be joined in the same suit with another controversy as against other defendants does not preclude removal. Barney v. LathamSearch
-
Nichols v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
Stewart v. NebraskaSearch
-
Des Moines Elevator & Grain Co. v. Underwriters'Search
-
Culp v. BaldwinSearch
-
and a cause of action which is joint in character is not alleged, a separable controversy is presented. See Culp v. BaldwinSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
employer and its resident employee, whose negligence caused the injury, are sued jointly. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. DixonSearch
-
Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. R. Co. v. DowellSearch
-
Hay v. MaySearch
-
Watson v. ChevroletSearch
-
Harrelson v. MissouriSearch
-
there could be no question that the Pullman Company would not have been entitled to remove. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. DixonSearch
-
justify removal. His relation to the Pullman Company and his negligence as its servant were fully alleged. See Grosso v. ButteSearch
-
may remove the cause although the other defendants have not been served with process and have not appeared. Tremper v. SchwabacherSearch
-
Hunt v. PearceSearch
-
Community Building Co. v. MarylandSearch
-
Trower v. Stonebraker-ZeaSearch
-
Kelly v. AlabamaSearch
-
Page 305 U. S. 541 the latter can make an effective application alone, his right to removal may be lost. Hunt v. PearceSearch
-
the resident defendant has not been served with process does not justify removal by the nonresident defendant. Patchin v. HunterSearch
-
Armstrong v. KansasSearch
-
Del Fungo Giera v. RocklandSearch
-
Hane v. Mid-ContinentSearch
-
been joined in good faith, and, for that reason, should not be considered in determining the right to remove. Wecker v. NationalSearch
-
Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. CockrellSearch
-
Wilson v. RepublicSearch
-
Clancy v. BrownSearch
-
do I agree that this is a correct construction of the removal statute. The statement is rested on the case of Barney v. LathamSearch
-
instead, it held exactly the opposite. Alabama Great Southern Ry. Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
see argument of counsel, p. 209 (consult printed version of U.S. Reports)). And, in Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. BohonSearch
-
be several which the plaintiff elects to make joint. ( See cases cited in Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
master and servant are charged with concurrent negligence. The rule is settled otherwise. In Alabama Great So. Ry. Co. v. ThompsonSearch
-
supra, and Cincinnati, N.O. & Texas Pac. Ry. v. BohanSearch
-
Q. Ry. Co. v. WillardSearch
-
was held on its obligation to the public of which it could not be relieved by virtue of a lease. . . . Nothing in Hay v. MaySearch
-
Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. SchwyhartSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Pullman Co. v. JenkinsSearch
-
Pullman Company v. JenkinsSearch
-
Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers'Search
-
See Culp v. BaldwinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial