 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| BYRD v. BLUE RIDGE RURAL ELEC. COOP., No. 57,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 19, 1958, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was employed by a construction company that had contracted with respondent corporation to build power lines and stations. Petitioner was injured while working and brought a negligence suit against respondent. Respondent claimed that petitioner's exclusive remedy was under the South Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act. The court of appeals directed judgment for respondent. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court upheld the court of appeals' interpretation of S.C. Code Ann. § 72-111, but held that petitioner should have an opportunity to offer his own proof under that interpretation of the statute. The Court also held that petitioner was entitled to a jury trial, even though under South Carolina law petitioner would not have been entitled to a jury trial on this issue. The Court stated that it did not believe that the likelihood of a different result was so strong as to require the federal practice of jury determination of disputed factual issues to yield to the state rule in the interest of uniformity of outcome. The Court stated that there was a strong federal policy against allowing state rules to disrupt the judge-jury relationship in the federal courts.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Denckla, No. 107,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 23, 1958, Decided **Together with No. 117, Lewis et al. v. Hanson, Executrix and Trustee, et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In consolidated cases, the parties contested the trust assets that were located in Delaware. The court held that Florida acquired no in rem jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of the inter vivos dispositions simply because its decision might augment an estate passing under a will probated in its courts. The fact that the owner was domiciled in Florida was not a sufficient affiliation with the property upon which to base jurisdiction in rem. Finding that Florida had no in rem jurisdiction, the court held that a judgment purporting to rest on that basis was invalid in Florida and must be reversed. Florida additionally had no in personam jurisdiction over the Delaware trustee. Since Florida was forbidden to enter a judgment attempting to bind a person over whom it had no jurisdiction, it had even less right to enter a judgment purporting to extinguish the interest of such a person in property over which the court had no jurisdiction. The unilateral activity of those who claimed some relationship with the nonresident defendant could not satisfy the requirement of contact with Florida. The Florida judgment was invalid under the fourteenth amendment principles of the constitution.
|
|||||
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. |
