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

Herb v. Pitcairn Et Al., Receivers For Wabash Railway Co.

• 1944 • 325 U.S. 77 • Stone Court
In the 1944 case of Herb v. Pitcairn et al., Receivers for Wabash Railway Co., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction and venue in lawsuits against railroad receivers appointed by federal courts. The plaintiff, Herb, was injured while working for the Wabash Railway Company in Ohio and filed suit there. However, since the company was under receivership in Illinois at that time due to bankruptcy proceedings, it argued that any legal action should be brought there...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 Stone Court
Term: 1944
Docket: 24
325 U.S. 77
65 S. Ct. 954
89 L. Ed. 1483
1945 U.S. LEXIS 2690

Herb v. Pitcairn Et Al., Receivers For Wabash Railway Co.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1944 case of Herb v. Pitcairn et al., Receivers for Wabash Railway Co., the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over jurisdiction and venue in lawsuits against railroad receivers appointed by federal courts. The plaintiff, Herb, was injured while working for the Wabash Railway Company in Ohio and filed suit there. However, since the company was under receivership in Illinois at that time due to bankruptcy proceedings, it argued that any legal action should be brought there instead. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that federal law did not require suits against federally-appointed railway receivers to be brought only where they were appointed; rather such suits could also be filed where cause of action arose or where defendants resided or conducted business operations as per general principles of venue laws applicable to ordinary civil actions.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Herb v. Pitcairn et al., Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant violated principles of due process. He contended that it was unfair and unconstitutional to subject a non-resident defendant, who had no contacts with or activities in the forum state, to its laws and courts simply because they were involved in interstate commerce. According to him, such an approach would lead to chaos as every state could claim jurisdiction over any corporation engaged in interstate business regardless of where they are located or operate from. This he believed would disrupt commercial relationships and undermine legal certainty which is crucial for businesses operating across different states.

Opinion written by Justice RHJackson
Decided: Apr 23, 1945
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