Denia M. Fawcett, Adm'x of the Est. of Floyd S. Fawcett v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 347 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Denia M. Fawcett, Adm'x of the Est. of Floyd S. Fawcett v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 347 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Barrera v. ROSCOE, SNYDER AND PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. (txnd, 1973-10-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barrera v. ROSCOE, SNYDER AND PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.
N.D. Tex. · 1973 · confidence medium
After careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the opinion, findings, and conclusions of the district court. . . .” 347 F.2d, at 233.
cited Cited "see" Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker
7th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nutrition Service, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 375, 387 (W.D.Pa.1964), affirmed, 347 F.2d 233 (3d Cir.1965).
cited Cited "see" Nutrilab, Inc. v. Schweiker
7th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nutrition Service, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 375, 387 (W.D.Pa.1964), affirmed, 347 F.2d 233 (3d Cir.1965).
cited Cited "see" Reserve Mining Company v. United States of America
8th Cir. · 1974 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Nutrition Service, Inc., 234 F.Supp. 578, 579 (W.D.Pa.1964), aff’d, 347 F.2d 233 (3d Cir. 1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Articles of Drug
D. Neb. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ibid; see also United States v. Nutrition Services, 227 F.Supp. 375 . 388-89 (W.D.Pa.1964), aff’d 347 F.2d 233 (3rd Cir.1965).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Sene X Eleemosynary Corp., Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ibid; see also United States v. Nutrition Service, 227 F.Supp. 375, 388-389 (W.D.Pa.1964) aff’d 347 F.2d 233 (3rd Cir. 1965).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Denia M. FAWCETT, Administratrix of the Estate of Floyd S. Fawcett, Appellant,
v.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee
21338_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 27, 1965.
347 F.2d 233
Joseph E. Bass, Jr., and Bass & Lawes, Lake Charles, La., for appellant., John R. Stewart and Stewart & Bond, Lake Charles, La., for appellee.
Whitaker, Rives, Jones.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This appeal is from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant Railroad Company in an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. §§ 51-60. The sole issue was whether the deceased, Fawcett, was an employee of the defendant within the meaning and purpose of the Act at the time of his death. That issue was fully explored by affidavits, oral testimony and exhibits. The district court held that there was no genuine issue of fact. Thinking that no reasonable man could differ with the conclusion that the deceased was not an employee of the defendant at the time he met his death, the district court entered a full opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law, [1] and granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The various relevant factors under law in determining whether the injured or killed person was an employee of the railroad carrier with respect to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act have been ruled several times by the Supreme Court. [2] After careful consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the opinion, findings, and conclusions of the district court. The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

1

. Reported in 242 F.Supp. 675.

2

. Baker v. Texas & P. R. Co., 1959, 359 U.S. 227, 228, 79 S.Ct. 664, 3 L.Ed.2d 756; Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 1960, 362 U.S. 396, 400, 80 S.Ct. 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 820, reversing Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 5 Cir., 1959, 265 F.2d 75; see also Sinkler v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1958, 356 U.S. 326, 78 S.Ct. 758, 2 L.Ed.2d 799. In each of the two cases first cited in this footnote, the Supreme Court referred to the Restatement of Agency 2nd. § 220 for the factors to be considered in each particular case in determining whether a person is an “employee.” (See 359 U.S. 228, 79 S.Ct. 664; 362 U.S. 400, 80 S.Ct. 789.) All of the pertinent cases are collected in an extensive annotation in 30 A.L.R.2d 517-529, and the Supplement Service.