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.
General
Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al.
322 U.S. 721·Supreme Court of the United States·1944
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. 779.
Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen et al.
May 29, 1944.
Mr. Charles H. Houston for petitioner.
[MAJORITY]
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted.
Messrs. Harold C. Heiss, Russell B. Day, and Wm. G. Maupin for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Eiremen & Enginemen et al., and Mr. Jas. G. Martin for the Norfolk Southern Railway Co., respondents.