45 U.S.C. § 4
[Award]. To the extent not inconsistent with this joint resolution the arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to sections 7 and 8 of the Railway Labor Act [this section and section 158 of this title], the board’s award shall be made and filed as provided in said sections and shall be subject to section 9 of said Act [section 159 of this title]. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is hereby designated as the court in which the award is to be filed, and the arbitration board shall report to the National Mediation Board in the same manner as arbitration boards functioning pursuant to the Railway Labor Act [this chapter]. The award shall continue in force for such period as the arbitration board shall determine in its award, but not to exceed two years from the date the award takes effect, unless the parties agree otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases, 1931–1997 · leading case: Salen v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 (1962).
Salen v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. 31 (1962). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 4 . [5] Although it was later held that the Safety Appliance Act has no room for the doctrine of equivalent, substitute devices, St.”
Chester Oglesby v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 6 F.3d 603 (9th Cir. 1993). “45 U.S.C. § 4 . The jury awarded damages to the conductor and the railroad appealed arguing that the case should not have gone to the jury because while the defective grab irons caused the injury, there was no breach of duty imposed by § 4 since the conductor was not engaged in…”
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957). “531 , 45 U. S. C. § 4 . [9] Fourteenth Ann. Rep.”
Taluzek v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 626 N.E.2d 1367 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993). “” ( 45 U.S.C. §4 (1988).) Defendant responded that any evidence of alternative handrails was irrelevant because the locomotive in question fully complied with Federal statutes and regulations.”
Michael Dennis Estes v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 598 F.2d 1195 (10th Cir. 1979). “However, appellee argues that the statute involved in that case was section 4 of the Safety Appliance Act ( 45 U.S.C. § 4 ), which makes it unlawful to use any car “in interstate commerce” that is not provided with secure grab irons or handholds, and that section 4 is broader in…”
Francis A. Beimert v. Burlington N., Inc., a Corp., 726 F.2d 412 (8th Cir. 1984). “In the second count, again relying on the FELA, 1 Beimert alleged only a violation of Section 4 of the Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 4 , which makes it unlawful to use a car that is not provided with secure handholds.”
Jerry E. Collins v. S. Pac. Co., 286 F.2d 813 (9th Cir. 1961). “a certain box car when he slipped on grease which was on one of the grab irons on said ladder; that he fell to the ground and received the injuries described in the complaint; and that his injuries were proximately caused because appellee used and hauled in interstate commerce…”
Ouellette v. Union Tank Car Co., 902 F. Supp. 5 (D. Mass. 1995). “In 1970, the Secretary of Transportation promulgated regulations governing handholds pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 45 U.S.C. § 4 . 1 The regulations are identical to the provision in the Safety Appliance Act, providing in specific detail the location, size, and…”
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 84 F.2d 569 (8th Cir. 1936). “, § 4 [ 45 U.S.C.A. § 4 ]), based upon a defective handhold, which he asserted was the cause of his injuries.”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Hardinger Transfer Co., 415 F. Supp. 507 (W.D. Pa. 1976). “§ 1292 (b) that the court hereby certifies it is of the opinion that this order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from this order may materially advance the ultimate termination…”
Hoffman v. New York, N. H. & H. R., 74 F.2d 227 (2d Cir. 1934). “Section 4 of the same act (45 USCA § 4) provides that no car shall be used in interstate commerce, unless otherwise ordered by the Interstate Commerce Commission, that is not provided with seeui'e “grab irons or hand holds.”
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Kelly, 74 F.2d 31 (8th Cir. 1934). “In short, appellant’s theory really demands that the jury believe that as soon as Hosier reached the appellee, who had been unexpectedly and dangerously injured and was lying on the ground at the place of the accident, he conceived the idea of manufacturing a cause of action, or…”
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.