Honeycutt v. Wabash Railway Co.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Francis T. Ratigan v. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commodities, Inc., and the Troy Union Railroad Company, Appellee-Appellant (2d Cir. 1961)
- Peter J. Zegan v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey (3d Cir. 1959)
- Walter Filipek v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc., and Third Party and Eastern Rigging Corp., Third Party (2d Cir. 1958)
- Anthony S. Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad Company (3d Cir. 1970)
- City of Fairbanks v. Nesbett (Alaska 1967)
- Honeycutt v. WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY (Mo. 1960)
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. H. W. Massengill (4th Cir. 1959)
- Honeycutt v. Wabash Railroad Company (Mo. Ct. App. 1958)
- Wehrli v. Wabash Railroad Company (Mo. 1958)
- Pehowic v. Erie Lackawanna Railroad (3d Cir. 1970)
- Harris v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
- Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
- Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
- Smith v. BNSF Railway Company (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2019)
- Lawrence J. Waller v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company (9th Cir. 1992)
- Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Lloyd (Colo. 1961)
- Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
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
HONEYCUTT
v.
WABASH RAILWAY CO.
Supreme Court of United States.
Charles E. Gray for petitioner.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the St. Louis Court of Appeals of the State of Missouri is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We hold that the proofs justified with reason the jury's conclusion that employer negligence played a part in producing the petitioner's injury. Ferguson v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc., 352 U. S. 521; Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER joins, concurs in the result for the reasons given in his memorandum in Gibson v. Thompson, 355 U. S. 18.
For the reasons set forth in his opinion in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U. S. 500, 524, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER is of the view that the writ of certiorari is improvidently granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.