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.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.; and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al., 1965 — 380 U.S. 972 · caselaw · US
General
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.; and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al.
380 U.S. 972·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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. 847.
No. 993.
Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al. v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.; and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen et al.
Edward J. Hickey, Jr., and James L. Highsaw, Jr., for petitioners in No. 847. Bay Garrett and Walter J. Cummings, Jr., for respondent in No. 847. Walter J. Cummings, Jr., for petitioner in No. 993.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.