 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Conley v. Gibson, No. 7,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 18, 1957, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The railroad workers filed a class suit against the union after 45 of them were ousted from their jobs and replaced by Caucasians, and the union failed to give them protection comparable to that given the Caucasian employees. The district court dismissed their case for lack of jurisdiction, and the lower appellate court affirmed the judgment. In reversing the judgment, the Court held that the dismissal of the railroad workers' complaint for lack of jurisdiction was in error because the Board lacked power under 45 U.S.C.S. ¿ 153 or any other provision under the Railroad Labor Act to protect them from the alleged discrimination. The Court also determined that the railroad workers' employer was not an indispensable party required to be joined because the action was not directly or indirectly against the railroad and because no relief was asked from the railroad or would bind the railroad. The railroad workers' complaint adequately set forth a claim upon which relief could be granted because there were facts which, if proven, would support the railroad workers' claims and would entitle them to their requested relief.
|
|||||
| McGEE v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INS. CO., No. 50,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 16, 1957, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The beneficiary obtained a judgment against the insurer in a California state court and attempted to enforce it through an action in the Texas state courts. The Texas courts refused to enforce the California judgment, holding that the judgment was void under the Fourteenth Amendment because service of process outside California could not give the courts of California jurisdiction over the insurer. On appeal, the Court found that the Due Process Clause did not preclude the California court from entering a judgment that was binding on the insurer. The Court found it sufficient for purposes of due process that the suit was based on a contract that had substantial connection with California. The contract was delivered in California, the premiums were mailed from there, and the insured was a resident of California when he died. There was no contention that the insurer did not have adequate notice of the suit or sufficient time to prepare its defenses and appear. The Court determined that the insurer had no vested right not to be sued in California and concluded that due process was satisfied because the insurer had certain minimum contacts with the State of California.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
