45 U.S.C. § 1 to 14
Repealed. Pub. L. 103–272, § 7(b), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1379
45 U.S.C. § 6 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[repealed]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 25
cases, 1932–1996 · leading case: Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957).
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957). “909 , 45 U. S. C. § 6 , provides in part: "That any such common carrier using any locomotive engine, running any train, or hauling or permitting to be hauled or used on its line any car in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, shall be liable to a penalty .”
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934). “85 , 45 U.S.C. § 6 ; March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat.”
Eileen Bailey v. Grand Trunk Lines New England, 805 F.2d 1097 (2d Cir. 1986). “45 U.S.C. §§ 6 , 13, 34. See California v.”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Hiles, 516 U.S. 400 (1996). “531 , 45 U. S. C. §6 (1988 ed.), recodified, as amended, 49 U.”
Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 518 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1975). “45 U.S.C. §§ 6 , 13 (1970). Safety appliance.”
Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1985). “The appellant relies inter alia upon 45 U.S.C. §§ 6 , 12, 34, and 438; and 49 U.”
Hoffman v. New York, N. H. & H. R., 74 F.2d 227 (2d Cir. 1934). “The exceptions in section 6 are expressly limited to “logging” trains. The provisions of section 9 relating to trains do not, in our opinion, affect the requirement in the act of 1903, amending the Safety Appliance Act (45 USCA § 8), of brakes, couplers, and grab irons on “all…”
State of California v. Anglim, 129 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1942). “That is to say, in no remote sense, as an alternative to the state’s ceasing its railway operations, ' Congress could compel the expenditure of state funds for such physical equipment of its cars, if it owned or acquired such cars, as here it compels the state to pay funds to…”
Cheffey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 79 F. Supp. 252 (E.D. Pa. 1948). “There was no evidence to show any safer way to repair cars. This is obviously not a case where a claim is made of any defect, deficiency or insufficiency in the car, as such; cf.”
United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co., 21 F. Supp. 916 (N.D. Tex. 1937). “The court said: “The defendant further argues that sections 6 of the act of 1893 and 2 of the act of 1903 (45 U. S.C.A. §§ 6, and 9) indicate that the provisions requiring power brakes and automatic couplers are limited to train movements and do not embrace locomotives and cars…”
Hamilton v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 131 Cal. App. 3d 982 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). “) The Jones Act provides in pertinent part as follows: “Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States…”
United States v. Guy A. Thompson, 252 F.2d 6 (8th Cir. 1958). “Jurisdiction is based on 45 U.S.C.A. § 6 . The complaint contained seven causes of action.”
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.