45 U.S.C. § 1 to 14
Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, § 7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379
45 U.S.C. § 2 has no page of its own: the Office of the Law Revision Counsel prints it together with other sections as the single entry 45 U.S.C. § 1 to 14, shown below.
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 128
cases, 1927–2015 · leading case: O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 384 (1949).
O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & E. Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 384 (1949). “The complaint mingled in a single count or cause of action charges of general negligence and a specific charge that defendant "carelessly and negligently" violated the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U. S. C. § 2 , by operating a car not equipped with the prescribed coupler.”
Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. Co., 395 U.S. 164 (1969). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 2 . [1] Petitioner was in the employ of Cargill, Inc.”
Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163 (1949). “In requiring that the boiler, and, not long after, that the entire locomotive, be maintained "in proper condition and safe to operate," Congress by its own statement was attempting to insure that such equipment "be employed in . . . active service .”
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 2 . This section, as well as the detailed provisions of § 5 dealing with the prescribed height of drawbars on couplers, could not be applicable to cars of little more than a yard's height easily coupled by hand without danger to anyone.”
Enrique Maldonado v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 798 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1986). “GARWOOD, Circuit Judge: Defendant Missouri Pacific Railroad Company appeals from a judgment in favor of its employee, plaintiff Enrique Maldonado, who sued Missouri Pacific under the Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA), 45 U.S.C. § 2 , for injuries he sustained in attempting to…”
McGee v. Burlington N., Inc., 571 P.2d 784 (Mont. 1977). “During the course of trial, plaintiff attempted to show that the automatic coupler mechanism between the boxcar and the chip car was defective, in that it would not remain uncoupled during normal switching operations.”
Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Blakely, 773 S.W.2d 595 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1989). “The trial court allowed Blakely to amend his pleadings before trial to add a cause of action under 45 U.S.C.A. § 2 (West Supp.1989), the Safety Appliance Act.”
Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Boston & Maine Corp., 639 F. Supp. 1092 (D. Me. 1986). “of a position held by any said employee, except upon authorization by further Order of this Court; and (c) Said carrier and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all others acting in concert therewith shall CEASE AND DESIST from any and all violation of the collective…”
Darrel Coleman v. Burlington N., Inc., 681 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1982). “, and was predicated on a statutory violation of section 2 of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 2 . The trial was before a jury, and a general verdict for the railroad was returned.”
Walter F. Lisek v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 30 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 1994). “After being injured while performing his duties as a switchman for Norfolk and Western Railway Company (“N & W”), Walter Lisek sued the company under the Federal Safety Appliance Act (“FSAA”), 45 U.S.C. §§ 2 -43a, and the Federal Employers Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.”
Affolder v. New York, 339 U.S. 96 (1950). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 2 . [2] 35 Stat. 65 , as amended, 45 U.”
Carter v. Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay Ry. Co., 338 U.S. 430 (1950). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 2 . [2] 35 Stat. 65 , as amended, 45 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.