Knowledge

Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.

Source 📝

234:
already paid him. Dice responded by asserting that the railroad had him sign it under false pretenses and that he had not read it before signing it. After the jury found in favor of Dice, the trial court judge reverses the judgment notwithstanding the verdict because it ruled that Dice could not avoid the obligations created by signing the release. Ohio state law imposed a duty on him to read the document before signing it. However, federal law would have held that the railroad's fraud precluded the enforcement of the release, and so the state appellate court reversed on this basis, which was then again reversed by the state supreme court, thus Dice appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
31: 243:
release valid if Plaintiff was negligent in not reading it, would defeat the purpose of FELA of giving employees a right to recover damages against their employers. In addition, there is a federal policy of not allowing individuals to escape liability through fraudulently obtained releases. Plaintiff has a right under FELA and the Seventh Amendment to a trial by jury. This cannot be taken away by Ohio's law giving the judge permission to decide the issue of fraud in the context of a release.
233:
jumped the tracks, striking and injuring a railroad employee named Dice, he brought a negligence claim in Ohio state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act against the railroad. The railroad produced a document in which Dice purportedly released it from all liability beyond what they had
246:
The majority decision illustrates the supremacy of federal law in state court action when the action is brought pursuant to a federal right, such as under FELA. In the case at hand, the Ohio rule permitting state court judges to determine if fraud had occurred was a substantive rule which would
242:
The federal right given an individual under the Federal Employers Liability Act and the parameters of such must be determined by federal law because under federal law, a release is not valid if it has been procured by false or misleading statements. Applying Ohio law, which would thus make the
220:
case in which the Court held that federal court rules apply when an action is brought pursuant to a federal right and where the substance of a state's rules would necessarily have an adverse effect on the protection of an individual's rights under federal law.
247:
necessarily affect the claim of the Plaintiff based on federal law. Because the effect of the application of the state court rule regarding judicial finding of fraud is to preclude the Plaintiff's federal law claim, the state court rule may not be applied.
392: 322: 72: 203: 402: 387: 407: 397: 230: 412: 217: 35: 422: 199: 94: 427: 417: 369: 326: 64: 351: 128: 266: 152: 140: 144: 132: 342: 333: 360: 300: 286: 164: 112: 381: 256: 261: 156: 67: 120: 93:
State law does not apply to the validity of releases of liability under the
79: 301:"Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952)" 287:"Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952)" 30: 189:
Frankfurter (in judgment), joined by Reed, Jackson, Burton
393:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court
193: 185: 177: 172: 101: 87: 59: 49: 42: 23: 181:Black, joined by Vinson, Douglas, Clark, Minton 319:Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 213:Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 54:Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 24:Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 8: 20: 403:United States conflict of laws case law 278: 231:Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 18:1952 United States Supreme Court case 7: 36:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 388:United States Supreme Court cases 329:359 (1952) is available from: 29: 408:Diversity jurisdiction case law 200:Federal Employers Liability Act 95:Federal Employers Liability Act 398:1952 in United States case law 1: 229:After an engine owned by the 216:, 342 U.S. 359 (1952), was a 413:United States Erie Doctrine 218:United States Supreme Court 444: 198: 106: 92: 43:Argued December 3–4, 1951 28: 45:Decided February 4, 1952 423:1952 in rail transport 238:Decision of the Court 370:Library of Congress 267:U.S. Supreme Court 141:William O. Douglas 117:Associate Justices 78:72 S. Ct. 312; 96 209: 208: 204:Seventh Amendment 145:Robert H. Jackson 133:Felix Frankfurter 435: 428:Railway case law 418:1952 in case law 374: 368: 365: 359: 356: 350: 347: 341: 338: 332: 305: 304: 297: 291: 290: 283: 153:Harold H. Burton 102:Court membership 33: 32: 21: 443: 442: 438: 437: 436: 434: 433: 432: 378: 377: 372: 366: 363: 357: 354: 348: 345: 339: 336: 330: 314: 309: 308: 299: 298: 294: 285: 284: 280: 275: 253: 240: 227: 155: 143: 131: 129:Stanley F. Reed 83: 44: 38: 19: 12: 11: 5: 441: 439: 431: 430: 425: 420: 415: 410: 405: 400: 395: 390: 380: 379: 376: 375: 352:Google Scholar 313: 312:External links 310: 307: 306: 292: 277: 276: 274: 271: 270: 269: 264: 259: 252: 249: 239: 236: 226: 223: 207: 206: 196: 195: 191: 190: 187: 183: 182: 179: 175: 174: 170: 169: 168: 167: 165:Sherman Minton 118: 115: 113:Fred M. Vinson 110: 104: 103: 99: 98: 90: 89: 85: 84: 77: 61: 57: 56: 51: 50:Full case name 47: 46: 40: 39: 34: 26: 25: 17: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 440: 429: 426: 424: 421: 419: 416: 414: 411: 409: 406: 404: 401: 399: 396: 394: 391: 389: 386: 385: 383: 371: 362: 353: 344: 335: 328: 324: 320: 316: 315: 311: 302: 296: 293: 288: 282: 279: 272: 268: 265: 263: 260: 258: 257:Erie Doctrine 255: 254: 250: 248: 244: 237: 235: 232: 224: 222: 219: 215: 214: 205: 201: 197: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 173:Case opinions 171: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 119: 116: 114: 111: 109:Chief Justice 108: 107: 105: 100: 96: 91: 86: 81: 75: 74: 69: 66: 62: 58: 55: 52: 48: 41: 37: 27: 22: 16: 318: 295: 281: 262:Jurisdiction 245: 241: 228: 212: 211: 210: 194:Laws applied 160: 157:Tom C. Clark 148: 136: 124: 71: 53: 15: 186:Concurrence 382:Categories 273:References 225:Background 121:Hugo Black 60:Citations 317:Text of 251:See also 178:Majority 343:Findlaw 334:Cornell 88:Holding 373:  367:  364:  361:Justia 358:  355:  349:  346:  340:  337:  331:  163: 161:· 159:  151: 149:· 147:  139: 137:· 135:  127: 125:· 123:  80:L. Ed. 325: 327:U.S. 73:more 65:U.S. 63:342 323:342 82:398 68:359 384:: 321:, 202:; 303:. 289:. 97:. 76:) 70:(

Index

Supreme Court of the United States
U.S.
359
more
L. Ed.
Federal Employers Liability Act
Fred M. Vinson
Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson
Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark
Sherman Minton
Federal Employers Liability Act
Seventh Amendment
United States Supreme Court
Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co.
Erie Doctrine
Jurisdiction
U.S. Supreme Court
"Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952)"
"Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co., 342 U.S. 359 (1952)"
342
U.S.
Cornell
Findlaw
Google Scholar
Justia

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.