Legal Opinion

Michael W. Hurley v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Company, a Body Corporate

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided November 1, 1989No. 89-2909PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Per curiam

The questions presented are whether the district court erred in granting appellee’s motion for a directed verdict at the end of appellant’s case and in granting appellee’s motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. We find no error, and accordingly affirm.

I

Appellant Michael W. Hurley has been employed by appellee railroad company since July 7,1974, as an expert machinist in the Locomotive Repair Shop. Prior to this employment, he completed a four year apprenticeship program involving 8,000 hours of training. Appellant is the only employee in the shop who is qualified to operate the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  4. Thomas W. Eggert v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. And Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  5. Ferriel M. Barnett v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1956

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Dennis Deans v. Csx Transportation, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  2. William Toth v. Grand Trunk Railroad, D/B/A Cn North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
  3. Gustafson v. Burlington Northern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Keranen v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Rogers v. Norfolk Southern Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API