284 U.S. 284 (1932), 130, Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte
| Docket Nº: | No. 130 |
| Citation: | 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295 |
| Party Name: | Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte |
| Case Date: | January 04, 1932 |
| Court: | United States Supreme Court |
Page 284
Argued November 24, 1931
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
Syllabus
1. A court of a state where a foreign railroad corporation is authorized to do business, owns and operates part of its lines, maintains an office, and has agents for the transaction of its general business has jurisdiction of a suit against the company in damages for personal injuries under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, brought by a resident upon a cause of action which arose in another state when he was residing there. P. 287.
2. Jurisdiction in such case is not defeated by the fact that a second railroad company, over which the court is without jurisdiction, is named codefendant. Id.
3. A foreign railroad corporation which is not authorized to do business within the state, and does not own or operate any of its lines within the state, although it owns some property there and employs agents who solicit traffic, held not subject to the jurisdiction of a court of that state in a suit in damages for personal injuries under the Federal Employers' Liability Act brought by a resident upon a cause of action which arose in another state when he was residing there, as otherwise an undue burden upon interstate commerce would result. Id.
4. The prohibition against burdening interstate commerce cannot be evaded merely by attaching the property of the foreign railroad corporation within the state, nor may it be avoided by joining as codefendant in the suit a second railroad company over which the court has jurisdiction. The burden and expense which the carrier must incur in order to make defense in a state where the accident did not occur has no relation to the nature of the process used to bring it before the court. Id.
5. The fact that witnesses for the plaintiff reside within the state, thus enabling him to try his cause there with less inconvenience
Page 285
than elsewhere, is not sufficient to justify the state court in retaining jurisdiction of the suit. P. 287.
Reversed.
Certiorari, post, p. 601, to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri denying a petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain a county circuit court from entertaining further jurisdiction of a suit in damages for personal injuries, under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, against two foreign railroad corporations.
MCREYNOLDS, J., lead opinion
[52 S.Ct. 153] MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri brings up for review a judgment which denied a petition for prohibition without an accompanying opinion.
Following the local practice, the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (Rio Grande) and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company (Santa Fe) presented their petition directly to the Supreme Court. After setting out the proceedings in an action against them pending in the Jackson County Circuit Court, it alleged that, if the cause proceeded to trial, an undue...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP
-
608 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1979), 77-3603, Walker v. Loggins
...examine the offenses to ascertain "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id., at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 152. As Blockburger and other decisions applying its principle reveal, see, E. g., Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
21 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 1942), 14059, Southern Ry. Co. v. Parker
...Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co., 292 U.S. 511, 54 S.Ct. 797, 78 L.Ed. 1396. This is not t......
-
173 S.E. 583 (N.C. 1934), 86, Steele v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928; Michigan Central Ry. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Denver, etc., Ry. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 492; Old Wayne Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8......
-
The Dormant Commerce Clause As a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction
...as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit”). 5. See, e.g., Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 287 (1932); Michigan Cent. R.R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 495 (1929); Davis v. Farmers’ Co-Op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 315 (1923); Panstwowe Z......
-
608 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1979), 77-3603, Walker v. Loggins
...examine the offenses to ascertain "whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id., at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 152. As Blockburger and other decisions applying its principle reveal, see, E. g., Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1......
-
21 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. 1942), 14059, Southern Ry. Co. v. Parker
...Michigan Central Railroad Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co., 292 U.S. 511, 54 S.Ct. 797, 78 L.Ed. 1396. This is not t......
-
173 S.E. 583 (N.C. 1934), 86, Steele v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...44 S.Ct. 469, 68 L.Ed. 928; Michigan Central Ry. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 49 S.Ct. 207, 73 L.Ed. 470; Denver, etc., Ry. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S. 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 492; Old Wayne Life Ass'n v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8......
-
17 F.Supp. 602 (S.D.Ohio 1936), 1198, Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Vigor
...To the same effect may be cited, Hoffman v. State of Missouri, 274 U.S. 21, 47 S.Ct. 485, 71 L.Ed. 905; Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 52 S.Ct. 152, 76 L.Ed. 295; Southern Railway way Co. v. Cochran (C.C.A.) 56 F. (2d) 1019; Hoch v. Byram, 180 Minn. 298, 230 N.W. 823; Wolf ......
-
The Dormant Commerce Clause As a Limit on Personal Jurisdiction
...as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit”). 5. See, e.g., Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 287 (1932); Michigan Cent. R.R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 495 (1929); Davis v. Farmers’ Co-Op. Equity Co., 262 U.S. 312, 315 (1923); Panstwowe Z......
-
New York Times v. Sullivan
...Co-operative Co., 262 U.S. 312 (1923); Michigan Central R. R. Co. v. Mix, 278 U.S. 492, 496 (1929); Denver & R.G. W. R. Co. v. Terte, 284 U.S. 284, 287 The decisions of this Court do not support the holding that the sporadic newsgathering activities of correspondents and stringers of Th......