Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Springfield Terminal Railway Co.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
1DissentStahl, Circuit Judge
I believe the majority misreads the record and misapprehends the federal law on piercing the corporate veil. Consequently, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the lower court properly pierced Springfiéld’s corporate veil to enjoin ABR from doing switching work previously performed by Springfield. Accordingly, I dissent.
The majority’s determination that ABR is subject to the RLA depends necessarily on its affirming the district court’s holding that “the close family relationship” between ABR and Springfield, Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Springfield Terminal Ry., Civil No.…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. BurleySupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad v. United Transportation UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- John Clark Donatelli v. National Hockey LeagueCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.