Skip to content
Try for free
Back to judgment

Citation network

California Vs. Taylor

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 03, 1957

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 3 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. Railway Employees' Dept. Vs. Hanson US Supreme Court · May 21, 1956
  2. United States Vs. Belt US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1943
  3. Case Vs. Bowles US Supreme Court · Feb 04, 1946
  4. U.S. 553 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Taylor
    Search
  5. U.S. 553 (1957) California v. Taylor
    Search
  6. we hold that it does. The operations of the State Belt Railroad have been described by this Court in Sherman v. United
    Search
  7. United States v. California
    Search
  8. and California v. Latimer
    Search
  9. This contention was rejected by a local trial court and by the California District Court of Appeal. California v. Brotherhood
    Search
  10. the Board in what Page 353 U. S. 559 was, in fact, compulsory arbitration. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago
    Search
  11. this Court has recognized that the Railway Labor Act protects and promotes collective bargaining. Virginian R. Co. v. System
    Search
  12. Switchmen's Union of North America v. National
    Search
  13. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway
    Search
  14. Steele v. Louisville
    Search
  15. a State may not prohibit the exercise of rights which the federal Acts protect. Thus, in Hill v. Florida
    Search
  16. Weber v. Anheuser-Busch
    Search
  17. In Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson
    Search
  18. interstate rail carriers as Page 353 U. S. 562 subject to its jurisdiction. See California Canneries Co. v. Southern
    Search
  19. Texas State Railroad, 34 I.C.C.Val.R. 276. Finally, this Court has recognized that practice. United States v. California
    Search
  20. U. S. 175 , 297 U. S. 186 . See also New Orleans V. Texas
    Search
  21. P. R. Co., 195 F.2d 887, 889. With the exception of the Supreme Court of California's holding in California v. Brotherhood
    Search
  22. Yet none of these statutes referred specifically to public railroads as being within their coverage. In United States v. California
    Search
  23. U.S. at 297 U. S. 186 . See also California v. United
    Search
  24. the coverage of which corresponded to that of the Safety Appliance Act, was applicable to public railroads. Mathewes v. Port
    Search
  25. Higginbotham v. Public
    Search
  26. Maurice v. State
    Search
  27. coverage of which was identical with that of the Railway Labor Act, was applicable to this Belt Railroad. California v. Anglim
    Search
  28. the position that the Railway Labor Act is applicable to railroads owned or operated by the public. National Council v. Sealy
    Search
  29. New Orleans Public Belt R. Commission v. Ward
    Search
  30. The Railway Labor Act is essentially an instrument of industry-wide government. See Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley
    Search
  31. See Slocum v. Delaware
    Search
  32. to control its employment relationships on a state-owned railroad engaged in interstate commerce. In United States v. California
    Search
  33. has subjected itself to that power so that Congress can regulate its employment relationships. See also California v. United
    Search
  34. Railway Employees' Dept. v. Hanson
    Search
  35. The same argument was rejected by the California District Court of Appeal in the earlier state court litigation, State v. Brotherhood
    Search
  36. Adamson Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 721, see Wilson v. New
    Search
  37. Eleventh, 64 Stat. 1238. See Railway Employes' Dept. v. Hanson
    Search
  38. Nutter v. Santa
    Search
  39. Los Angeles v. Los
    Search
  40. California v. Brotherhood
    Search
  41. For cases upholding the supremacy of federal statutes relating to railroads in interstate commerce, see Napier v. Atlantic
    Search
  42. Southern R. Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  43. Erie R. Co. v. New
    Search
  44. Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1 (Employers' Liability Act). Cf. Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood
    Search
  45. Rhyne, Labor Unions and Municipal Employe Law (1946), 247-251. See also Long Island R. Co. v. Department
    Search
  46. First. In United States v. United
    Search
  47. there involved differ widely in history and purpose from the Railway Labor Act. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court California v. Taylor
    Search
  49. Sherman v. United
    Search
  50. the California District Court of Appeal. California v. Brotherhood
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales