...whether one is engaged in interstate commerce is as follows: Was the employee, at the time of the injury, engaged in interstate transportation, or in work so...closely related to it as to be practically a part of it. All employee^ who participate in the maintenance or operation of instrumentalities for the general...

...of employment in such commerce in the sense intended is, Was the employe at the time of the injury engaged in interstate transportation, or in work so...related to it as to be practically a part of it?' Manifestly there was no such close or direct relation to interstate transportation in the taking of...

...of employment in such commerce in the sense intended is, Was the employe at the time of the injury engaged in interstate transportation or in work so...closely related to it as to be practically a part of it?"8 The work of some employes, however, has a broader connection with the entire operation of the...

...his service, the test of employment In interstate commerce being whether he was engaged at the time in Interstate transportation or In work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it. — Sullivan v. Baltimore & OR Co., Pa., 116 Atl. 369. 43. Negligence. — Where a servant was Injured...

...Employment. — The test of employment in interstate commerce is whether the employe, when injured, was engaged in interstate transportation, or In work so...closely related to it as to be practically a part thereof; there being VOL. No. M in such cases a distinction between a mere expectation that particular...

...New York Cent. & HRR Co. v. Carr, 238 US 260. 9 NCCA 1, att'g 158 App. Div. <NT) 891. of the injury, engaged in interstate transportation or in work so closely related to it as to be practically part of it?"2 Most railroad tracks are used in both interstate and intrastate commerce, but when j...

...then holds that, "measured by this test, appellee was not engaged in 'interstate transportation' nor 'in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it.' " As It seems to us these cases are harmonized upon the theory, that, in the first case, the employee...

...consider that Efflnger, If not at the moment engaged in strictly interstate transportation, was employed 'in work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of if within the 'true test' formulated In Shanks v. DL & W. Ry. Co., 239 US 556, 36 S. Ct. 188. 60 L....

...declared, that the employe at the time of the injury must ttt engaged in interstate transportation or ID work so closely related to it as to be practically a part of it, in order to displace r-tate jurisdiction and make applicable the federal act. And there is a difference...

...test being whether at the time of the injury the employe was engaged in interstate transportation or work so closely related to it as to be practically a part thereof. — Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Industrial Commission, 111.. 125 N. E. US. 21. ContrnctN...