Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 15 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Robert M. Cavanaugh, and Martha E. Cavanaugh v. Western Maryland Railway Company and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robert M. Cavanaugh, and Martha E. Cavanaugh v. Western Maryland Railway Company and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company Anchor | green | “neither by its express language nor by its legislative history does section 5 suggest in any way that the 'device' at which the proscription of the section was directed was intended to include a counterclaim to recover for the railroad's own losses incurred in connection with th…” | 3 |
| 2 | Robert M. Cavanaugh, and Martha E. Cavanaugh v. Western Maryland Railway Company and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company | green | “as long as a railroad is permitted to hold the threat of a counterclaim for property damage over the heads of those employees who have the misfortune to be involved in a railroad accident, those witnesses, whether injured or not, may well be reluctant to participate during the i…” | 3 |
| 3 | Robert M. Nordgren v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation | green | “any device whatsoever' refers only to any other creative agreement or arrangements the railroad might come up with to exempt itself from liability” | 3 |
| 4 | Stack v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. | green | “supported both by the purpose of the act and by case authority” | 3 |
| 5 | Stack v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. | green | “the crew's testimony will be affected because they will be reluctant to testify candidly when their own pocketbooks are in jeopardy” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.