45 U.S.C. § 56
Actions; limitation; concurrent jurisdiction of courts
No action shall be maintained under this chapter unless commenced within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.
Under this chapter an action may be brought in a district court of the United States, in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing such action. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under this chapter shall be concurrent with that of the courts of the several States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 863
cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: Tyrrell v. BNSF Railway Co.
Tyrrell v. BNSF Railway Co. (2016)
“Thus, in 1910, Congress added the following language to Section 6 of the FELA, 45 U.S.C. § 56 : 6 Under this chapter an action may be brought in a district court of the United States, in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in…”
Hovatter, D. v. CSX Transportation (2018)
“On November 18, 2015, he instituted the instant action pursuant to the FELA, and after preliminary objections, filed an amended complaint on March 8, 2016, alleging that he suffered from cumulative traumatic injuries which occurred in the course of his employment with Appellant.”
Burnett v. New York Central Railroad (1965)
“66 , as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 56 (1958 ed.), which provides: "That no action shall be maintained under this Act unless commenced within three years from the day the cause of action accrued.”
Barrett v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2017)
“The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under this chapter shall be con- current with that of the courts of the several States, and no case arising under this Act and brought in any state court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United…”
Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd. (2011)
“§ 30104, Lindo contends that the repeal of the Jones Act venue provision thereby entails that the venue provision of the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"), 45 U.S.C. § 56 , [33] now governs. Lindo next argues that if FELA's venue provision governs Jones Act cases, then…”
Urie v. Thompson (1949)
“Furthermore, the court held that the Federal Employers' Liability Act's three-year statute of limitations, 45 U.S.C. § 56 , did not bar petitioner's claim since his "cause of action accrued in May, 1940, when he became incapacitated.”
the Kansas City Southern Railway Company v. Ronald K. Oney, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Daniel D (2012)
“45 U.S.C.A. § 56 . “It is now well-settled that Congress explicitly directed that FELA wholly preempt state-law remedies for railway employees injured in the course of employment when any part of that employment furthers interstate commerce.”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell (2017)
“The Montana Supreme Court reached this question only by wrongly assuming that 45 U.S.C. § 56 is a jurisdictional statute and that a defendant's unique status as a railroad company is dispositive of the jurisdictional question.”
McAllister v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. (1958)
“It thus seems to me that the three-year limitation on the Jones Act remedy, 45 U. S. C. § 56 , is the ready and logical source to draw upon for determining the period within which this federal right may be enforced.”
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers (2003)
“45 U. S. C. § 56 . [2] Asbestosis is a noncancerous scarring of the lungs by asbestos fibers; symptoms include shortness of breath, coughing, and fatigue.”
Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (1994)
“66 , as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 56 , but neither petitioner met the 1-year limit specified in the States' statutory consent to sue the Port Authority.”
Donovan v. City of Dallas (1964)
“291 , as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 56 . [1] Under Texas law, the mere filing of suit in the Federal District Court prevented the issuance of bonds to finance construction at Love Field, the Dallas municipal airport.”
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.