Legal Opinion
Holford v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided March 23, 1967No. Civ. No. 66-310PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROBERT M. McRAE, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiff, Charlie A. Holford, brings this action as a shipper of used brick for damages for which the defendant, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, as carrier, is responsible. The shipments in question were made pursuant to a uniform bill of lading and the suit is brought pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 20(11).
The matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss which was accompanied by a Stipulation of Facts with exhibits attached. The sole issue raised by the motion concerns the limitation of the action by virtue of the suit not having been filed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Midstate Horticultural Co. v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- B. A. Walterman Company, an Ohio Corporation v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Pennsylvania CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1961
- L.M. Kirkpatrick Co. v. I.C.R. Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1940
3Cited by9 opinions
- William A. Cordingley v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- John Morrell & Company v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1974
- Polaroid Corp. v. Hermann Forwarding Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Cordingley v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Montana · 1976
- Cumberland Buildings Co. v. BlanchetteSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.