Gallardo v. Santini Fertilizer Co., 275 U.S. 62 (1927). · Go Syfert
Search
Gallardo v. Santini Fertilizer Co., 275 U.S. 62 (1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
267 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 53 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schutte v. L. R. & N. Co. (lactapp, 1929-02-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schutte v. L. R. & N. Co.
La. Ct. App. · 1929 · confidence medium
Goodman, 275 U. S. p. 66, 48 S. Ct. 24 , 72 L.
cited Cited "see" Gary C. Lancaster v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company
7th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Southwell, 275 U.S. 64 , 48 S.Ct. 25 , 72 L.Ed. 157 (1927).
examined Cited "see" Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Kountze (3×)
Tex. App. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See in this connection the remarks of Mr. Justice Holmes in Gallardo v. Santini Fertilizer Co., 275 U.S. 62 , 48 S.Ct. 24 , 72 L.Ed. 157 (1927).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edie v. Gray
Mont. · 2005 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. Goodman (1927), 275 U.S. 66 , 48 S.Ct. 24 , 72 L.Ed. 167 (requiring the reasonable man to stop, get out of his vehicle, and look before crossing railroad tracks), with Pokora v. Wabash R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Halbert D. Brooks v. Washington Terminal Company
D.C. Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Euresti v. Washington Terminal Co., 108 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 82 , 280 F.2d 629, 630 (1960) (per curiam); see also Sowards v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, 580 F.2d 713, 715 (4th Cir. 1978). 5 The doctrine of Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459, 462 , 68 S.Ct. 140 , 92 L.Ed. 73 (1947) (per curiam), and Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Railroad, 372 U.S. at 249 , 83 S.Ct. 690 , requires proof of reasonable foreseeability of danger from intentional or criminal misconduct before liability is imposed on an employer under the F.E.L.A. for its “direct negligence.” See also Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. S…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gallardo
v.
Santini Fertilizer Company
164.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 31, 1927.
275 U.S. 62
Mr. William Cattron Rigby, with whom Mr. George C. Butte, Attorney General of Porto Rico, was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Nelson Gammans for appellee.
Holmes.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a bill in equity brought in the District Court of Porto Rico to restrain the collection of taxes imposed by the laws of Porto Rico. An injunction was issued by the District Court, on March. 31, 1925. On April 7, 1925, an appeal was allowed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That Court at first made a decree 'reversing the,decree of the District Court, but later, on December 18, 1926, set that decree aside and transferred the case 'to this Court, under the Act of September 14,. 1922, c. 305; 42 Stat..837, conceiving that the jurisdiction of the District Court was' invoked solely upon the ground that the controversy involved the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. On March 4, 1927, the Act of Congress was passed that took away the jurisdiction of the District Court in. this class óf cases, as explained in Smallwood v. Gallardo, ante, p. 56.

The case has been argued upon the merits and also upon a motion to remand -it to the Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that the appeal properly was taken to that Court. As the only jurisdiction remaining anywhere is to make an order requiring the case to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction we need not discuss these[*64] matters. The decision that no jurisdiction remains comes from this Court, and -it is proper that it'should carry out its decision without unnecessary circuity by directing it to be enforced.

Decree reversed.

Bill to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.