Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of the United States, 1955

Diehl v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Diehl v. Lehigh Valley Railroad
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 14, 1955
348 U.S. 960; 75 S. Ct. 521; 99 L. Ed. 749; 1955 U.S. LEXIS 1488; 35 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2612 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Harry Montgomery Leet argued the cause for petitioner., With him on the brief was Sheldon E. Bernstein., Richard R. Lyman argued the cause for respondents., With him on a brief were Clarence M. Mulholland and Edward J. Hickey, Jr. for the System Federation No. 96, Railway Employes’ Department, A. F. of L., et al., respondents., Thomas Price Mikell and Harry E. Sprogell filed a brief for the Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., respondent., Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Burger and Samuel D. Slade filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Diehl v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Cases that cite this one

55 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

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 of the Court

*960Certiorari, 348 U. S. 860, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Per Curiam:

Upon the facts disclosed in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 211 F. 2d 95, the applicable Acts of Congress, and the opinion of this Court in Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 338 U. S. 278, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Mr. Justice Reed dissents for the reasons given in the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Solicitor General Sobeloff, Assistant Attorney General Burger and Samuel D. Slade filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

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