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.
Order of Railway Conductors of America et al. v. Swan et al.; and Williams et al. v. Swan et al., 1946 — 327 U.S. 776 · caselaw · US
General
Order of Railway Conductors of America et al. v. Swan et al.; and Williams et al. v. Swan et al.
327 U.S. 776·Supreme Court of the United States·1946
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. 968.
No. 969.
Order of Railway Conductors of America et al. v. Swan et al.; and Williams et al. v. Swan et al.
April 22, 1946.
V. C. Shuttle-worth, Everett L. Gordon and Leo J. Hassenauer for petitioners. Kenneth F. Burgess, Douglas F. Smith, R. J. Hagman, Bryce L. Hamilton, Burton Mason and John A. Sheean for the Railroad Carriers et al., and Conrad H. Poppenhusen and Anan Raymond for the Railroad Yardmasters, respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writs of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted.