Legal Opinion
Ahmad v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided September 27, 1991No. 89 C 7694Published
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Defendant Allied Products Corporation’s (“Allied”) moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the court denies the motion.
FACTS
On February 22, 1988, plaintiff, while on his way to work at Allied, passed through a gate on the east side of Allied’s property commonly known as “1C.” As was his practice, he would pass through the gate and follow a path across the railroad yard to Allied’s facilities located on the opposite end of the yard. This gate and path had been used in this manner by both Allied…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ward v. K Mart Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
- Bank Leumi Le-Israel, B.M., a Foreign Corporation v. Dennis Lee, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.