Plaintiff, a negro, had purchased a railroad ticket entitling him to first class accommodations from Chicago, Illinois to Hot Springs, Arkansas. When the train entered Arkansas, the conductor, in purported compliance with an Arkansas statute requiring segregation of colored from white persons forced plaintiff to leave the Pullman car and ride in the second-class car set aside for colored passengers. Plaintiff alleged that this car was not equipped with the same conveniences which were provided for white passengers traveling first class, and he filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission claiming that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. The commission, in dismissing the complaint, foun...
Petitioner brought an action in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of a state statute whi...
Homer A. Plessy challenged an 1890 Louisiana Law that required separate train cars for Black America...
This June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a technical, but important case interpreting Title VII of ...
Plaintiff, a negro, had purchased a railroad ticket entitling him to first class accommodations from...
The defendant, St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, maintained separate accommodations in ra...
Nine industrial corporations sought to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission comm...
Complainants instituted this suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission prohib...
Arkansas Act 17 of 1891provided for segregated railroad accomodations.aCTS OF ARKANSAS 17 having ch...
Chapter 236, Laws of Kansas, 1931, requires private motor carriers for hire in interstate commerce t...
Applicant petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission for a certificate of public convenience and ...
Article describing the case against Capt. L.R. Brown, conductor on the Cairo & Fulton Railroad, who ...
Defendant union struck the Florida East Coast Railroad in a dispute over work rules, and began picke...
In response to plaintiff trucking company\u27s complaint under section 15 of the Clayton Act allegin...
The plaintiff was engaged in business as a common carrier of goods by motor vehicle. He transported ...
Statement regarding the Southern Governors\u27 Commodity Case (aka State of Alabama et al v. N. Y. C...
Petitioner brought an action in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of a state statute whi...
Homer A. Plessy challenged an 1890 Louisiana Law that required separate train cars for Black America...
This June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a technical, but important case interpreting Title VII of ...
Plaintiff, a negro, had purchased a railroad ticket entitling him to first class accommodations from...
The defendant, St. Louis and San Francisco Railway Company, maintained separate accommodations in ra...
Nine industrial corporations sought to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission comm...
Complainants instituted this suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission prohib...
Arkansas Act 17 of 1891provided for segregated railroad accomodations.aCTS OF ARKANSAS 17 having ch...
Chapter 236, Laws of Kansas, 1931, requires private motor carriers for hire in interstate commerce t...
Applicant petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission for a certificate of public convenience and ...
Article describing the case against Capt. L.R. Brown, conductor on the Cairo & Fulton Railroad, who ...
Defendant union struck the Florida East Coast Railroad in a dispute over work rules, and began picke...
In response to plaintiff trucking company\u27s complaint under section 15 of the Clayton Act allegin...
The plaintiff was engaged in business as a common carrier of goods by motor vehicle. He transported ...
Statement regarding the Southern Governors\u27 Commodity Case (aka State of Alabama et al v. N. Y. C...
Petitioner brought an action in an Arkansas state court to enjoin enforcement of a state statute whi...
Homer A. Plessy challenged an 1890 Louisiana Law that required separate train cars for Black America...
This June, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a technical, but important case interpreting Title VII of ...