General
Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al. ; and Haynes v. Southern Railway System et al.
336 U.S. 943·Supreme Court of the United States·1949
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. 578. No. 579.
Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. et al. ; and Haynes v. Southern Railway System et al.
Solicitor General Perlman for petitioners. C. S. Landrum for respondent in No. 578; Carl M. Jacobs and W. S. MacGill for respondent in No. 579; and James Park, Frank L. Mulholland, Clarence M. Mulholland and Willard H. Mc-Ewen for System Federations Nos. 21 and 91, Railway Employes' Department, A. F. of L., respondents.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari granted.