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.
Anderson, Administratrix, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.; and Swafford v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 1955 — 350 U.S. 807 · caselaw · US
General
Anderson, Administratrix, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.; and Swafford v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
350 U.S. 807·Supreme Court of the United States·1955
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that certiorari should not have been granted in these cases.
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
No. 143.
No. 261.
Anderson, Administratrix, v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.; and Swafford v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
Thomas J. Lewis and Richard M. Maxwell for petitioner in No. 143. Howard P. Macjarlane for petitioner in No. 261. William M. Howell for respondent in No. 143. G. L. Reeves, Norman C. Shepard and Frank G. Kurka for respondent in No. 261.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
On petitions for writs of certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Per Curiam:
The petitions for writs of certiorari in these cases are granted and the judgments are reversed.
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that certiorari should not have been granted in these cases.