Legal Opinion

Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Company

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided September 26, 2000No. C6-99-64PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WILLIS, Judge

Plaintiff sued his employer, appellant Soo Line Railroad Company, for injuries plaintiff suffered in applying a handbrake on a locomotive. Soo Line filed a third-party complaint against respondent General Motors Corporation, the manufacturer of the locomotive, seeking contribution and indemnity. The district court granted General Motors’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Soo Line’s claims were preempted by the federal Locomotive Inspection Act. This court dismissed Soo Line’s appeal as untimely. The supreme court granted review, reversed, and remanded for…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  4. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  5. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1926

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Engvall v. Soo Line Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API