Michael W. Hurley v. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Company, a Body Corporate
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
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
- Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Inman v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Thomas W. Eggert v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. And Erie Lackawanna Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- 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
- Dennis Deans v. Csx Transportation, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
- William Toth v. Grand Trunk Railroad, D/B/A Cn North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- Gustafson v. Burlington Northern RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1997
- Keranen v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Rogers v. Norfolk Southern Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2003
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.