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

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton

• 1913 • 233 U.S. 492 • White Court
In the case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton (1913), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seaboard Air Line Railway, reversing a decision made by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The dispute arose when Horton was injured while working for the railway company and sought compensation under Georgia's Employer’s Liability Act. However, his employment contract stipulated that any injury claims would be handled according to Virginia law - where he had been hired - which did not allow such suits...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 White Court
Term: 1913
Docket: 691
233 U.S. 492
34 S. Ct. 635
58 L. Ed. 1062
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1229
Argued: Feb 27, 1914

Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton (1913), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Seaboard Air Line Railway, reversing a decision made by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The dispute arose when Horton was injured while working for the railway company and sought compensation under Georgia's Employer’s Liability Act. However, his employment contract stipulated that any injury claims would be handled according to Virginia law - where he had been hired - which did not allow such suits unless negligence could be proven. The court held that since both parties agreed to this provision freely and without fraud or duress, it should be upheld even though it limited Horton's rights under Georgia law. This ruling affirmed an employer's right to limit liability through contractual agreements with employees.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Georgia law that allowed an injured employee to sue their employer in any county where the injury occurred. He argued that this law was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights by potentially subjecting defendants to lawsuits in counties far from their place of residence or business operations, which could impose undue hardship and inconvenience on them. Furthermore, he contended that such laws unfairly favored plaintiffs by giving them too much discretion over where they could file suit. In his view, these factors combined created an unjust imbalance between plaintiffs and defendants' rights within the legal system.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Apr 27, 1914
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