MEEKS v. GEORGIA S. & F. R. CO., 377 U.S. 405 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

MEEKS v. GEORGIA S. & F. R. CO., 377 U.S. 405 (1964)

377 U.S. 405

MEEKS v. GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY CO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA.
No. 981.
Decided June 1, 1964.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 1004, Braswell, Administratrix, v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co., on petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Certiorari granted and judgments reversed.

Reported below: No. 981, 108 Ga. App. 808, 134 S.E.2d 555.

Thomas J. Lewis and Thomas J. Lewis, Jr. for petitioner in No. 981.

W. Graham Claytor, Jr., Charles J. Bloch, Denmark Groover, Jr. and William H. Allen for respondent in No. 981.

George R. Wolf for petitioner in No. 1004.

Robert Broderick for respondent in No. 1004.

PER CURIAM.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgments are reversed. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting in No. 981, and dissenting in part and concurring in part in No. 1004.

These are two more negligence cases, neither of which should have been brought here since both involve only questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdicts. See, e. g., my dissenting opinion in Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 375 U.S. 208, 212, and

Page 377 U.S. 405, 406

those in the cases therein cited; cf. my dissenting opinion in Eichel v. New York Central R. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 256.

Feeling obliged, however, to reach the merits because the cases are before us, see my opinion in Rogers v. Missouri P. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 559-562, I dissent from the judgment in No. 981 and concur in the judgment in No. 1004.

 


U.S. Supreme Court

MEEKS v. GEORGIA S. & F. R. CO., 377 U.S. 405 (1964)

377 U.S. 405

MEEKS v. GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY CO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA.
No. 981.
Decided June 1, 1964.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 1004, Braswell, Administratrix, v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co., on petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Certiorari granted and judgments reversed.

Reported below: No. 981, 108 Ga. App. 808, 134 S.E.2d 555.

Thomas J. Lewis and Thomas J. Lewis, Jr. for petitioner in No. 981.

W. Graham Claytor, Jr., Charles J. Bloch, Denmark Groover, Jr. and William H. Allen for respondent in No. 981.

George R. Wolf for petitioner in No. 1004.

Robert Broderick for respondent in No. 1004.

PER CURIAM.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted and the judgments are reversed. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting in No. 981, and dissenting in part and concurring in part in No. 1004.

These are two more negligence cases, neither of which should have been brought here since both involve only questions of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdicts. See, e. g., my dissenting opinion in Dennis v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R. Co., 375 U.S. 208, 212, and

Page 377 U.S. 405, 406

those in the cases therein cited; cf. my dissenting opinion in Eichel v. New York Central R. Co., 375 U.S. 253, 256.

Feeling obliged, however, to reach the merits because the cases are before us, see my opinion in Rogers v. Missouri P. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 559-562, I dissent from the judgment in No. 981 and concur in the judgment in No. 1004.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.