Citation network
Wilkerson Vs. Mccarthy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 31, 1949
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. 53 (1949) U.S. Supreme Court Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
U.S. 53 (1949) Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
the issues of negligence to a jury if evidence might justify a finding either way on those issues. See, e.g., Lavender v. KurnSearch
-
Bailey v. CentralSearch
-
Tiller v. AtlanticSearch
-
Coast Line R. Co., 318 U. S. 54 , 318 U. S. 68 , and see Brady v. SouthernSearch
-
by its employees. That proposition is correct, since the Act imposes liability only for negligent injuries. Cf. Coray v. SouthernSearch
-
See individual opinion of Judge Major, Griswold v. GardnerSearch
-
railroads. This is contrary to fact, as shown for illustration by other Federal Employers Liability cases, Barry v. ReadingSearch
-
Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 182 S.W.2d 61, cert. denied, 324 U.S. 843. And cf. Bruner v. McCarthySearch
-
Jones v. EastSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Washington & G. R. Co. v. McDadeSearch
-
U. S. 572 . Such has ever since been the established rule for trial and appellate courts. See Tiller v. AtlanticSearch
-
of the several States presupposes a jury under proper guidance of a disinterested and competent trial judge. Herron v. SouthernSearch
-
that brought such a case here during this period was dismissed, and rightly, as improvidently granted. McCarthy v. BrunerSearch
-
The reasons for this practice were indicated by Chief Justice Taft for a unanimous Court in Layne & Bowler Corp. v. WesternSearch
-
that deprived the beneficiaries of many of the intended benefits of the legislation. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. HortonSearch
-
Toledo, St.L. & W. R. Co. v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 165 , and the review of the cases in Tiller v. AtlanticSearch
-
employer. This Court led the way in overturning jury verdicts rendered for employees. See Chicago, M. & St.P. R. Co. v. CooganSearch
-
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. AebySearch
-
from proven facts has been respected. (3) The historic role of the jury in performing that function, see Jones v. EastSearch
-
included which, though arising under the Act, present issues other than those of negligence. Moreover, Wabash R. Co. v. WilliamsonSearch
-
Tennant v. PeoriaSearch
-
Blair v. BaltimoreSearch
-
Keeton v. ThompsonSearch
-
Cogswell v. ChicagoSearch
-
Jesionowski v. BostonSearch
-
Ellis v. UnionSearch
-
Pauly v. McCarthySearch
-
Myers v. ReadingSearch
-
Anderson v. AtchisonSearch
-
Eubanks v. ThompsonSearch
-
Penn. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Coray v. SouthernSearch
-
Brady v. SouthernSearch
-
Hunter v. TexasSearch
-
Eckenrode v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
McCarthy v. BrunerSearch
-
Beamer v. VirginianSearch
-
Cowdrick v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
Cf. Coray v. SouthernSearch
-
of Judge Major, Griswold v. GardnerSearch
-
Barry v. ReadingSearch
-
Bruner v. McCarthySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial