Supreme Court of the United States, 1917

Lehigh Valley Railroad v. Barlow

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 21, 1917 · McReynolds

244 U.S. 183; 37 S. Ct. 515; 61 L. Ed. 1070; 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1623 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Peter F. McAllister, with whom Mr. F. 0. McCleary was on the briefs, for plaintiff in error., Mr. Clayton R. Lusk fur defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

54 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Walling v. Consumers Co. (7th Cir. 1945)
LaRue v. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (Ill. App. Ct. 1937)
Delcour v. Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Co. (New York Supreme Court 1943)
Harrington v. Industrial Commission of Utah (Utah 1938)
Fluitt v. New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co. (La. 1937)
Crysel v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1934)
Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (2d Cir. 1934)
Wetterer v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1934)
Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. (District Court, E.D. New York 1933)
Boyer v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (Md. 1932)
Boyer v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Md. 1932)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown (Ala. 1931)
Watson v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Co. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1931)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Jolly's Administratrix (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1930)
Wise v. Lehigh Valley R. (2d Cir. 1930)
Farmers' Bank & Trust Co. of Hardinsburg v. Atchison, T. & S. F. RY. Co. (8th Cir. 1928)
Youngstown & O. R. R. v. Halverstodt (6th Cir. 1926)
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Mills (5th Cir. 1924)
Owens v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1932)
Hulse v. Pacific & Idaho Northern Railway Co. (Idaho 1929)
Johnston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Iowa 1929)
Efaw v. Industrial Commission (Wis. 1929)
Wabash Railway Co. v. Whitcomb (Ind. Ct. App. 1927)
Hamilton v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1927)
Arizona Eastern Railroad v. Head (Ariz. 1924)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Basing his claim upon the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, defendant in- error sought damages for personal injuries. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in his favor, 214 N. Y. 116, and the question now presented is whether there is evidence tending to show that he was injured while engaging in interstate commerce. The accident occurred July 27, 1912, when, as member of a switching crew, he was assisting in placing three cars containing supply coal for plaintiff in error on an unloading trestle within its yards at Cortland, New York. These *184 cars belonged to it and with their contents had passed over its line from Sayre, Pennsylvania. After being received in the Cortland yards — one July 3 and two July 10— they remained there upon sidings and switches until removed to the trestle on the' twenty-seventh.

We think their interstate movement terminated before the cars left the sidings, and that while removing them the switching crew was not employed in interstate commerce. The essential facts in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. Harrington, 241 U. S. 177, did not materially differ from those now presented. There we sustained a recovery by an employee, holding he was not engaged in interstate commerce; and that decision is in conflict with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. The judgment under review must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.