Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. v. KENNEDY, 1909 — 214 U.S. 502 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. v. KENNEDY
214 U.S. 502·Supreme Court of the United States·1909
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. v. KENNEDY.
ERROR TO THE COURT OP CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME - JUDICIAL DISTRICT'OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
No. 817.
Motion to dismiss or affirm.
Submitted April 26, 1909.
Decided May 3, 1909.
Writ of error to review the judgment of the state court in a suit for damages for injuries caused by negligence of plaintiff in error-dismissed' without opinion for want of jurisdiction,' notwithstanding contention of plaintiff in error that its claim that the act of April 24,1905, ch. 163, of Texas legislature was unconstitutional as depriving it of the fellow-servant defense had been duly set up at the proper time in the state court.
The nature of this case appears above.
Mr. C. A. Culberson for the defendant in error in support of the motion.
Mr.-James Hagerman, Mr. J. M. Bryson and Mr. A. B. Browne,, for the plaintiff in error in opposition thereto..
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
Writ, of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction.