Legal Document

354 U.S. 517 77 Supreme Court Reporter 1398 1 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1534 Theodore C. McBRIDE, petitioner,v.TOLEDO TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY. Number 972. of the June 24, 1957 On petition for writ certiorari to Ohio. PER CURIAM. The is granted, judgment Ohio reversed, and cause remanded. Rogers versus Missouri Pacific R. Co., 1957, 352 500, 443, 493. 2 Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 3 In 524, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions gave my reasons deeming it an abuse Court's discretionary jurisdiction make cases arising under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 Code Annotated KF65 U5 § 51 et seq., a class exception principle against granting when all that involved evaluation evidence. circumstances present case vividly emphasize objections such exception. 4 All be determined in this whether there were sufficient facts warrant jury finding lighting situation which petitioner worked, assumed inadequate, caused whole or part injury petitioner. trial judge Common Please thought not. review, Appeals Lucas County reversed: two judges enough justify jury's causation while dissenting agreed with court. review reversal, Ohio, one its seven not sitting, unanimously reversed restored 166 St. 129, 140 North Eastern Reporter, 2nd 319. Thus, issue sufficiency evidence relevant was passed on by three courts hierarchy Ohio's judiciary. Of ten judges, eight found insufficient guess at they should allowed guess—for determination inescapably guessing, informed guessing if you will, but guessing. 5 Congress saw fit give state rights created Act. Presumably, had confidence enforcement these rights. It emphasized special more than forty years ago, withdrew from what theretofore been appealiability as right judgments Act cases. left adjudications brought courts, except instances applicable generally certiorari, exercised, is, 'only where are important therefor.' Rule 19 Revised Rules Court, 28 6 cannot too often repeated. This has said again difference opinion weighing included among 'special reasons' certiorari. One would suppose examination proof have conscinentiously canvassed. A different presented find applied wrong legal standards particular before evinced hostility federal statute. Either grounds fair basis seek here decision Court. But sought granted. agreeing take case, merely accedes natural desire unsuccessful plaintiff court do And so nine members highest tribunal land, proccupied involving gravest issues national importance, asked task making independent study record below (for must assume those who merits examined 294 pages record), four opinions below, briefs parties, after conscientiously dealt questions specialized law indeed constitute probably most recurring staple business throughout country. 7 respectfully decline task. time compelled hold abused some judicial power. Abuse discretion technical phrase express misconception function exercised situation. There no appeal When misuse power, deem exception, effect formally, turn evidence, only individual conscience remains. Since underscores declining associate myself regard power properly vested minority choice conclude improvidently granted and, having dismissed. 8 BURTON, 9 For stated 319, believe petitioner's injuries caused, 'in part,' possible inadequacy lighting. 10 HARLAN, whom WHITTAKER joins, dissents given his 559, 443.

Classification Label: 7