Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/280/102/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/280/102/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Mihas, 280 U.S. 102 (1929)
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Mihas
No. 21
Argued October 24, 1929
Decided November 25, 1929
280 U.S. 102
Syllabus
1. A judgment of the Appellate Court of Illinois, which, under Cahill's Rev.Stats. Ill., 1927, c. 110, § 121, is final unless the judges of that court grant a certificate of importance and an appeal to the supreme court of the state, or the latter court grants an application for review, is affirmed when the supreme court refuses such an application, and is then final for purposes of review in this Court, although no application for certificate of importance and appeal to that court has been made to the appellate court. P. 280 U. S. 103.
2. It is not sufficient for a complainant to how that he has been injured by the failure of another to perform duty or obligation unless that duty or obligation was one owing to the complainant. P. 280 U. S. 106.
3. A railway employee, having occasion in the course of his duty to cross a switch-track, attempted to climb over one of several cars standing upon it and was thrown off and injured when, without warning, other cars were shunted forcibly against them. It was the custom of the railway company to give warning when such shunting was to be done, but only to persons, other than employees, engaged in unloading the standing cars, and there was no custom or duty of the kind in respect of employees engaged in work on or about the tracks. There was nothing to show that the employees engaged in he switching operation knew, or had reason to believe, that this employee was in any position of danger. Held that the failure to give warning, though he relied upon it, was not a breach of duty owed to him, and that he had no cause of action. P. 280 U. S. 106.
249 Ill.App. 446 affirmed.
Certiorari, 279 U.S. 827, to review a judgment of the appellate court of Illinois affirming a verdict and judgment for damages in an action under the federal Employer's Liability Act.
