Citation network
Ferguson Vs. Moore-mccormack Lines, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 25, 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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Ferguson v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Lines, Inc. - 352 U.S. 521 (1957) U.S. Supreme Court Ferguson v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Lines, Inc., 352 U.S. 521 (1957) Ferguson v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
utilize the knife to loosen the ice cream. But the jury, which plays a preeminent role in these Jones Act cases, Jacob v. CitySearch
-
Schulz v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
be tempted to use a knife to perform his task with dispatch, since no adequate implement was furnished him. See Schulz v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
under the Jones Act is that established by Congress under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, what we said in Rogers v. MissouriSearch
-
issues in a case, resting as it so largely does on the partisan claims in briefs of counsel. See Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-TszeSearch
-
Southern Power Co. v. NorthSearch
-
on the original papers. Surely this must be acknowledged regarding one of today's cases, No. 46, and see McCarthy v. BrunerSearch
-
the Page 352 U. S. 528 surface to warrant a writ of certiorari does not warrant it, see Layne & Bowler Corp. v. WesternSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Magnum Import Co. v. CotySearch
-
U. S. 159 , 262 U. S. 163 -164. ( See also Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. WolfSearch
-
the construction or scope of the statute are appropriate for review here. See, e.g., Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
Reed v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
to the jury, which returned a verdict for petitioner. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed. Rogers v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 220 , 268 U. S. 227 . See also Houston Oil Co. v. GoodrichSearch
-
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. WesternSearch
-
adequate in amount and especially prompt in administration. McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
than paraphrase, I shall repeat what I have already said about negligence cases and certiorari policy in Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
Carter v. AtlantaSearch
-
McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
The Court may well have had this discrimination in mind when it granted certiorari in the diversity cases of Gibson v. PhillipsSearch
-
petitions were from this group, except one in which the writ was later dismissed as improvidently granted. McCarthy v. BrunerSearch
-
This dissenting opinion applies also to No. 28, Rogers v. MissouriSearch
-
No 42, Webb v. IllinoisSearch
-
and No. 46, Herdman v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
et seq., and the Lucas Act, 60 Stat. 902 ( see Buffalo Faultless Pants Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Hill v. AtlanticSearch
-
Carter v. AtlantaSearch
-
Affolder v. NewSearch
-
Moore v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
Anderson v. AtlanticSearch
-
Coast Line R. Co., 350 U.S. 807. See McAllister v. UnitedSearch
-
R. Co., 350 U. S. 523 , 350 U. S. 527 (Jones Act). See also Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
Reynolds v. AtlanticSearch
-
Stone v. NewSearch
-
See discussion of this point in Rice v. SiouxSearch
-
Wilkerson v. McCarthySearch
-
from the employer's negligence. See, e.g., Illinois Central R. Co. v. SkaggsSearch
-
Any notion that the practice of directing verdicts offends the Seventh Amendment was laid to rest in Galloway v. UnitedSearch
-
Atchison, T. & S.F. R. Co. v. SaxonSearch
-
Indicates Summary Disposition Per Curiam. ) 1911 Term. Texas & P. R. Co. v. HowellSearch
-
affirmance of judgment for plaintiff affirmed. 1912 Term. Troxell v. DelawareSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ferguson v. Moore-McCormackSearch
-
Jacob v. CitySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial