Meeks v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.
Opinion of the Court
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 .
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part
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 *538 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.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
377 U.S. 405 (1964)
MEEKS
v.
GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY CO.
No. 981.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 1, 1964. [*] ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA.
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 *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.
NOTES
[*] 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.