45 U.S.C. § 8
[Expiration date]. This joint resolution shall expire one hundred and eighty days after the date of its enactment [Aug. 28, 1963 ], except that it shall remain in effect with respect to the last sentence of section 4 for the period prescribed in that sentence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1929–1986 · leading case: Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957).
Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 353 U.S. 325 (1957). “943 , 45 U. S. C. § 8 . The term "similar vehicles" shows that all vehicles are not included.”
Hoffman v. New York, N. H. & H. R., 74 F.2d 227 (2d Cir. 1934). “§ 8 (45 USCA § 8), Act March 2, 1903, 32 Stat.”
Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 291 U.S. 205 (1934). “943 , 45 U.S.C. §§ 8 , 9, 10; April 14, 1910, c.”
United States v. Fort Worth & Denver City Ry. Co., 21 F. Supp. 916 (N.D. Tex. 1937). “Code, 45 U.S.C.A. § 8 , which reads: “§ 8. Provisions of chapter extended.”
Hunt v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 327 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1976). “SUNDBERG, Justice: Petitioner recovered a $200,000 verdict and judgment in the Circuit Court in and for Duval County on a claim brought against respondent under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, Power Brake Law, and the Boiler Inspection Act ( 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 8 , 9 and 23), and…”
Patrick Mazzucola v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 281 F.2d 267 (3rd Cir. 1960). “According to the complaint, depositions and other items of record, the accident in this case occurred when the plaintiff was uncoupling a railroad car from a caterpillar tractor which had moved the car from one place to another at the pier where a ship was being unloaded.”
McKenna v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 670 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1986). “” 45 U.S.C. § 8 . 4 . Defendant is willing to concede for the purpose of this motion that WMATA was engaged in a proprietary function at the time plaintiffs .”
Hohlweiler v. Pennsylvania R.R., 294 F. Supp. 1377 (E.D. Pa. 1969). “The statute of limitations under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act is three years.”
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 403 F.2d 211 (10th Cir. 1968). “531 ), which in part here pertinent reads: “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving-wheel brake * *, Section 8 of the Safety…”
Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 70 F.2d 300 (2d Cir. 1934). “976, § 1 [45 USCA § 8]), the foregoing requirement was extended “to apply to all * * * cars * * * used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce i: * c and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used in connection therewith.”
The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Daniel T. Jackson, 233 F.2d 660 (D.C. Cir. 1956). “943 (1903), 45 U.S.C.A. § 8 . 7 . United States v. St.”
United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 42 F.2d 248 (W.D. Wis. 1929). “” Section 1 (45 USCA §8). And this language was expressly slated in the Croekett Case, supra, to mean: “That the provisions and requirements respecting train brakes, automatic couplers, grab irons, and the height of drawbars shall be extended to all railroad vehicles * * * so…”
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.