Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission Of Illinois Et Al.

• 1931 • 284 U.S. 296 • Hughes Court
The case of Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, 1931, revolved around the issue of workers' compensation for an employee who was injured while working in another state but employed by a company based in Illinois. The plaintiff, Mr. Cavanaugh, was a resident and employee in Indiana under the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company which is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois. He sustained injuries during his work hours within Indiana's...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1931
Docket: 79
284 U.S. 296
52 S. Ct. 151
76 L. Ed. 304
1932 U.S. LEXIS 874
Argued: Dec 01, 1931

Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission Of Illinois Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The case of Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, 1931, revolved around the issue of workers' compensation for an employee who was injured while working in another state but employed by a company based in Illinois. The plaintiff, Mr. Cavanaugh, was a resident and employee in Indiana under the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company which is incorporated and headquartered in Illinois. He sustained injuries during his work hours within Indiana's jurisdiction and sought to claim compensation from his employer through the Industrial Commission of Illinois. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not it was constitutional for an out-of-state worker to seek benefits from their home-state employer via that state’s industrial commission despite being injured elsewhere.The court ruled against the railroad company stating that it did not violate due process rights as per Fourteenth Amendment because there existed sufficient contacts between the parties involved (the worker and his employer) with respect to employment relationship within State boundaries.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Industrial Commission of Illinois, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to compensate employees injured while working out-of-state violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The dissenting justices believed that such regulation should be left up to Congress and not individual states, as it interfered with interstate commerce by imposing additional costs on railroad companies operating across state lines. They also expressed concern about potential inconsistencies in worker compensation laws between different states, which could create confusion and legal challenges for businesses engaged in interstate commerce.

Opinion written by Justice GSutherland
Decided: Jan 04, 1932
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms