Harris v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 10514.,10514. |
| Citation | 196 F.2d 88 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Otto Kerner, Jr., U. S. Atty., John Peter Lulinski, Asst. U. S. Atty., Anthony Scariano, Asst. U. S. Atty., all of Chicago, Ill. (Myles F. Gibbons, Paul M. Johnson and Charles F. McLaughlin, all of Chicago, Ill., Railroad Retirement Board, of counsel), for appellant.
Leonard Bosgraf, Kellam Foster, Chicago, Ill., Franklin Jones, Marshall, Tex. (C. A. Brian, Marshall, Tex., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MAJOR, Chief Judge, DUFFY and LINDLEY, Circuit Judges.
William A. Harris was injured while employed as a switchman by the Texas and Pacific Railway Company. Upon application made to the Railroad Retirement Board (hereinafter called Board) Harris was awarded benefits based upon total and permanent disability. Thereafter he brought suit against the railway company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In that action he caused a subpoena duces tecum to be issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, directed to Mrs. Mary B. Linkins, Secretary of the Board, requiring her to appear on September 14, 1951, at Chicago, Illinois, before Paul A. Ruhe, official court reporter, to testify and give evidence on behalf of Harris, and to produce certain documents in the possession of the Board acquired in connection with the claim of Harris for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228a et seq., which claim had theretofore been finally adjudicated. The principal document desired was a medical report made by Dr. Carl McCurdy of Texas, who had treated Harris after his injuries, and whom the defendant railway expected to call as one of their witnesses at the trial of the suit then pending in Texas. Pursuant to the subpoena Mrs. Linkins appeared before Mr. Ruhe having in her physical possession the documents referred to in the subpoena, but declined to furnish the reports of a medical nature which had been specified. She stated her declination was based upon Regulation 262.16(b) of the Board, 20 C.F.R., 1949 Ed., 262.16(b), and also on a specific order of the Board which directed that she decline to deliver said medical records.
On September 18, 1951, counsel for Harris filed a motion for an order compelling Mrs. Linkins to answer the interrogatories propounded to her on September 14, 1951, and a hearing was held thereon at which both Harris and Mrs. Linkins were represented by counsel. Judge Barnes entered an order to compel Mrs. Linkins to answer before Reporter Ruhe at 10:00 A. M. on September 19, 1951. Mrs. Linkins appeared before Mr. Ruhe at that time, and in response to the interrogatories propounded again stated she declined to attach to her deposition the medical reports described in the subpoena or copies thereof or to permit photographs of them, again basing her declination on the Board regulation as well as the specific order of the Board directing that she not disclose said information.
On September 20, 1951, counsel for Harris moved the court for a rule against Mrs. Linkins, to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt of court. The court issued the rule returnable September 24, 1951. The matter was continued to September 25, 1951, at which time counsel for Harris demanded that Mrs. Linkins be held in contempt of court for failure to make available the documents in response to the subpoena duces tecum. The district judge held Mrs. Linkins to be in contempt because she "would not permit the papers to be examined," and committed her to the custody of the Attorney General "until she shall obey said subpoena duces tecum issued out of this court, or is discharged by due process of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawaii Public Employment Relations Bd. v. United Public Workers, Local 646, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
...proceedings must necessarily be terminated. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 574 F.2d 445, 447 (8th Cir.1978); Harris v. Texas & Pacific Ry., 196 F.2d 88, 90 (7th Cir.1952). The UPW argues that the settlement of the strike mooted the main case constituting a termination of the same and requiri......
-
United States v. Yates, Cr. No. 22467.
...45, 20 U. S. 38, 45, 5 L.Ed. 391; United States v. Hudson, 1812, 7 Cranch 32, 34, 11 U.S. 32, 34, 3 L.Ed. 259; Harris v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 7 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 88, 90; United States v. International Union, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 341, 190 F.2d 865, 873-874; Parker v. United States, 1 Cir.,......
-
United States v. Crawford Enterprises, Inc.
...behavior. See e.g., Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 371, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 1536, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); Harris v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 196 F.2d 88, 90 (7th Cir.1952). This is an inherently reasonable proposition, because after the original cause of action has abated, the contemn......
-
PEOPLE'S HOUS. DEVEL. CORP. v. City of Poughkeepsie
...384 U.S. 364, 370, 371, 86 S.Ct. 1531, 16 L.Ed.2d 622 (1966); F.T.C. v. Stroiman, 428 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1970); Harris v. Texas and Pacific Ry., 196 F.2d 88 (7th Cir. 1952); De Parcq v. United States District Court, 235 F.2d 692, 697 (8th Cir. 1956). No such rule applies to purely compensat......