Case Citator › Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
112 U.S. 377
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
40 of 40
Citing cases (total)
40
Treatment dates
1896–1899
Overruled
A reviewed court has overruled this case. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross was overruled on its rule that a train conductor is the railroad's representative merely by holding that position. In New England Railroad v. Conroy, the Supreme Court said its intervening decision in Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Baugh had overruled that rule in effect, and held the conductor and brakeman to be fellow servants.
More on how this was screened

Earlier federal courts had confined Ross to its facts. All 40 flagged citations have been read; the 3 confirmed federal treatments are listed below. State courts' choices about their own tort law are separately noted.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

40 later cases cite Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross; 40 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled

  • The Supreme Court held that Ross's rule making a freight-train conductor the railroad's representative by virtue of that position had been overruled in effect.

    New England Railroad v. Conroy · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    In so far as the decision in the case of Ross is to be understood as laying it down, as a rule of law to govern in the trial of actions against railroad companies, that the conductor, merely from his position as such, is a vice-principal, whose negligence is that of the company, it must be deemed to have been overruled, in effect if not in terms, in the subsequent case of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Baugh, before cited.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The district court confined Ross to cases with identical facts and held a repair crew foreman to be a fellow worker.

    Coulson v. Leonard · Eastern District of Pennsylvania · filed

    I do not think it is venturing much to say that if Railroad Co. v. Ross, is hereafter to be regarded as authority for the application of the rule, it will only be in cases where the facts are identical.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Sixth Circuit confined Ross to its particular facts when deciding a repair-shed injury claim.

    Grady v. Southern Ry. Co. · Sixth Circuit · filed

    The Ross Case, 112 U. S. 377, 5 Sup. Ct. 184, it is said, has never been expressly overruled. This is true, but it has been so limited to its peculiar facts as to make it of no force as authority in any case where those facts are not exactly presented.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. v. Ross and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace