Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-21-1960
..... the verdict. it is so ordered. mr. justice black and mr. justice douglas dissent. they believe there was evidence of negligence sufficient for the jury, as summarized by judge woodbury, speaking for a unanimous court of appeals. 272 f.2d 153. they also dissent from the direction to enter judgment for the petitioner, since they are of the ..... 153, reversed. per curiam. the respondent was a waitress in the grill car of one of petitioner's trains. she brought this action under the federal employers' liability act, 45 u.s.c. 51 et seq., for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an emergency application of the brakes brought the train to a sudden stop. a jury ..... 364 u.s. 441 certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit syllabus in this suit against a railroad under the federal employers' liability act by a waitress in the grill car of one of the railroad's trains to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained when an emergency application of the brakes brought .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-20-1960
..... particular area from arbitration -- "matters which are strictly a function of management." because the arbitration promise is different, the scope of the court's inquiry may be broader. here, a court may be required to examine the substantive provisions of the contract to ascertain whether the parties have provided that ..... particularly underscored that the arbitral process in collective bargaining presupposes that the parties wanted the informed judgment of an arbitrator, precisely for the reason that judges cannot provide it. therefore, a court asked to enforce a promise to arbitrate should ordinarily refrain from involving itself in the interpretation of the substantive ..... every claim, meritorious or frivolous, which the complainant bases upon the contract. the objection that equity will not order a party to do a useless act is outweighed by the cathartic value of arbitrating even a frivolous grievance, and by the dangers of excessive judicial intervention." mr. justice brennan, with whom .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-1960
..... thus unseaworthy and one of the crew received damage as the direct result thereof, he was entitled to recover compensatory damages." [ footnote 2/2 ] chief judge magruder has appropriately noted that no previous decision in this court has considered whether liability for unseaworthiness existing at the start of the voyage extends to subsequently arising ..... and therefore entitled to those rights if any which flow from the maritime law and flows [ sic ] from the act of congress." in a memorandum filed almost a month after the trial, the district judge, apparently relying upon the fact that the shipowner had no direct financial interest in the spawn which had been unloaded ..... the carriage of goods by sea act would, of course, bar recovery. the silvia, 171 u. s. 462 . but where, as here, there is neither a claim that the vessel was initially unseaworthy, nor any showing of negligence, the imposition of liability seems to me borrowing from judge magruder, a "hard doctrine," "startlingly opposed .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-18-1960
..... the jury in determining whether the petitioner was an "employee" of the railroad during the performance of the work within the meaning of the act. the instructions given in effect limited inquiry to the question whether the petitioner was aware that the railroad considered him not to be working for it, but for some third page ..... load watermelons out there on that track, and he always repaired it every year before watermelon time." however, we agree with the petitioner's alternative contention that the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by the petitioner, [ footnote 1 ] and in giving the page 362 u. s. 399 instructions he did, [ ..... contention. indeed, we do not think that the proofs presented a jury question whether the turpentine company was the railroad's "agent" within the meaning of the act. this was not a situation, as in sinkler, in which the railroad engaged an independent contractor to perform operational activities required to carry out the franchise. this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-27-1960
..... perceive any other reason to upset this award. consequently, we affirm with respect to this particular permit. there remains only the question of standing. although the three-judge court concluded that the commission had not exceeded its authority in this case, two members of the court also believed that "there was no showing of actual or ..... page 364 u. s. 14 should not substitute our judgment for the commission's on a matter like this, for "[t]he grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are those upon which the record discloses that its action was based." securities & exchange commission v. chenery corp., 318 u. s. 80 , 318 u. s. 87 ..... commission acts beyond its statutory authority when, in the public interest, it occasionally departs from the auxiliary and supplementary limitations in a 207 proceeding." 355 u.s. at 355 u. s. 151 -152. these, then, are the guiding principles which have been established by what has gone before and which mark the range of our inquiry in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-20-1960
..... the merits of a "minor dispute," the resolution of which is committed by the railway labor act, 3(i), 48 stat. 1189, 45 u.s.c. 153, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the adjustment board. the question of a district judge's jurisdiction to impose this type of condition upon an injunction issued to preserve the adjustment board ..... the frequently long delayed board decision, it might well be impossible to make them whole in any realistic sense. if this be so, the action of the district judge, rather than defeating the board's jurisdiction, would operate to preserve that jurisdiction by preventing injury so irreparable that a decision of the board in the union's ..... although respondents maintain that there has been such an abuse in this case, scrutiny of the record does not persuade us that the evidence was insufficient to support the judge's action. the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. mr. justice harlan and mr. justice stewart, while agreeing with the court that the district court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-28-1960
..... alone does not render an affidavit insufficient, the commissioner need not have required the informants or their affidavits to be produced, or that didone have personally made inquiries about the apartment, so long as there was a substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. in the court of appeals, petitioner presented an additional attack upon ..... have been imported illegally into the united states. petitioner was found guilty on both counts, and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. the court of appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed the conviction. 104 u.s.app.d.c. 345, 262 f.2d 234. since the case presented important questions in the administration of criminal ..... in an affidavit is insufficient basis for a warrant. if evidence of a more judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified on officer in acting on his own without a warrant must be presented when a warrant is sought, warrants could seldom legitimatize police conduct, and resort to them would ultimately .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-23-1960
..... s. 141 , 284 u. s. 147 ; united states v. storrs, 272 u. s. 652 , 272 u. s. 654 . as established by these precedents, the focal point of inquiry is not the form page 361 u. s. 442 of the defendant's plea, but the effect of the ruling of the district court. [ footnote 2/1 ] "the material question ..... question that the statute validly and clearly confers power upon the secretary of the treasury to issue a properly worded regulation making the acts of the appellees unlawful. this is made apparent by the district judge's statement that "[t]he secretary could very easily have indicated that east and west germany page 361 u. s. 454 ..... 41 cong.rec. 2819. it is manifest that the preoccupying thought of the primary promoter of the legislation, president roosevelt, and of congress, was to bar a single judge from destroying, either by way of construction or invalidation, congressional enactments. extension of the range of the meaning of "statute" to include regulations to which penal consequences attach .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-1960
..... 9, 10, or 11 may be enforced by injunction. (emphasis added.) the government relies heavily on the fact that the comparable provision in 10 of the 1890 act authorized injunctive relief against "any unlawful obstruction." a closer examination of that section, however, undermines the government's conclusion. it authorized criminal penalties in two instances: ..... , vessel, scow, raft, or other craft used or employed in violating any of the provisions of sections thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen of this act shall be liable for the pecuniary penalties specified in this section, ..... the manner contemplated in section fifteen of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this act, and shall upon conviction be punished as hereinbefore provided in this section, and shall also have his license revoked or suspended for a term to be fixed by the judge before whom tried and convicted. and any boat .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-16-1960
..... severance if prejudice does appear. and where, as here, the charge which originally justified joinder turns out to lack the support of sufficient evidence, a trial judge should be particularly sensitive to the possibility of such prejudice. however, the petitioners here not only failed to show any prejudice that would call rule 14 into ..... joint trial after dismissal of the conspiracy count. they say that the resulting prejudice could not be cured by any cautionary instructions, and that therefore the trial judge was left with no discretion. petitioners overlook, however, that the joinder was authorized under rule 8(b), and that subsequent severance was controlled by rule 14, ..... transaction, as evidenced by the fact that the proof of conspiracy utterly failed. the other acts or transactions charged were not in the same "series," within the meaning of rule 8(b). mr. justice van devanter, when circuit judge, in united states v. dietrich, 126 f. 664, 670, said: "much can be said in support of .....
Tag this Judgment!