TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Peck

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati v. Peck, 87 N.E. 644 (Ind. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 9, 1909
Docket
No. 21,407
Citations
87 N.E. 644172 Ind. 191909 Ind. LEXIS 3
Cited by 3
Headnotes
Appeal.—Transfer.—Constitutional Question.—Where a cause presenting a constitutional question which has been firmly settled is appealed to the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of which but for such question would be in the Appellate Court, the cause will be transferred to the Appellate Court.
Summary
Prom Cass Circuit Court; Joseph M. Baht, Special Judge. Action by Charles M. Peck against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. (See same case on former appeal—165 Ind. 537.) From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $4,000, defendant appeals. Transferred from the Appellate Court under §1397 Burns, 1908, Acts 1901, p. 565, §13 (see 43 Ind. App. 316). Transferred to the Appellate Court. (Transferred again to the-Supreme Court [see 44 Ind. App. 62]. Transferred again to the Appellate Court [see 172 Ind. 562], Transferred again to the Supreme Court [see 44 Ind. App.-].

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The constitutional validity of section one of the employers’ liability act (Acts 1893, p. 294, §8017 Burns 1908) has been firmly settled by the Supreme Court of this State and also by the Supreme Court of the United States. The assertion of appellant’s .counsel that this section is unconstitutional will not serve to lodge the jurisdiction over this appeal in the Supreme Court, which, otherwise, would be in the Appellate Court. It is therefore ordered that this cause be transferred to the Appellate Court. See Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (1907), 168 Ind. 483 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →
1909: 11911: 11912: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Blair v. City of Fort Wayne98 N.E. 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
  2. Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.93 N.E. 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 1911)
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck88 N.E. 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)

Most recent

  1. Blair v. City of Fort Wayne98 N.E. 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 1912)
  2. Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.93 N.E. 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 1911)
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck88 N.E. 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati v. Rogers, 81 N.E. 212 (Ind. 1907) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list