|
|
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese, 239 U.S. 614 (1916)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese, 239 U.S. 614 (1916)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 239 U.S. 608, click here.
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese No. 133 Argued December 10, 1915 Decided January 17, 1916 239 U.S. 614
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Federal courts must accept the construction of a state statute deliberately adopted by the highest court of that state.
The highest court of the state having held, in construing the Washington Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, that the compensation thereby provided in the cases covered, by its terms, was intended to be exclusive of every other remedy and that all causes of action theretofore existing and not saved by its provisos were done away with, the federal court should accept that construction.
In view of that construction, held that, although the act did not specifically repeal § 183 and 194, Rem. & Ball.Code, the personal representatives of an employee, killed, while in the course, and at the place, of his employment, by the negligence of one not his employer, cannot maintain a suit at law therefor against the latter.
On the record in this case, it does not appear that the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Washington is unconstitutional as a denial of the equal protection of the law.
211 F. 254 reversed. .
The facts, which involve the construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Washington and the duty of the federal court to follow the construction of that statute in cases arising thereunder, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese, 239 U.S. 614 (1916) in 239 U.S. 614 239 U.S. 615–239 U.S. 617. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NULRCAZBF8BVG1G.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese, 239 U.S. 614 (1916), in 239 U.S. 614, pp. 239 U.S. 615–239 U.S. 617. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NULRCAZBF8BVG1G.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Meese, 239 U.S. 614 (1916). cited in 1916, 239 U.S. 614, pp.239 U.S. 615–239 U.S. 617. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=NULRCAZBF8BVG1G.
|