You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Keith L. Manion v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Company, a Corporation

Citations: 1 L. Ed. 2d 721; 1 L. Ed. 2d 722; 77 S. Ct. 715; 353 U.S. 925; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1085Docket: 702

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; April 7, 1957; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the case of Keith L. Manion et al. v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Company. The Court vacated the judgment of the Kansas City Court of Appeals of Missouri, referencing its previous decision in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River and Indiana R. Co. The Court determined that the current dispute was not pending before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which was a key factor in their ruling. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision, allowing the Court of Appeals to reinstate its judgment if the dispute is submitted to the Adjustment Board by either party within a reasonable timeframe.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction of National Railroad Adjustment Board

Application: The legal principle establishes that the jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board is a crucial factor in determining the adjudication of railway disputes.

Reasoning: The Court determined that the current dispute was not pending before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, which was a key factor in their ruling.

Precedential Influence of Supreme Court Decisions

Application: The Supreme Court's previous decision in a related case was referenced as a basis for vacating the appellate court's judgment.

Reasoning: The Court vacated the judgment of the Kansas City Court of Appeals of Missouri, referencing its previous decision in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River and Indiana R. Co.

Remand for Further Proceedings

Application: The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision, allowing the appellate court to potentially reinstate its judgment.

Reasoning: The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision, allowing the Court of Appeals to reinstate its judgment if the dispute is submitted to the Adjustment Board by either party within a reasonable timeframe.