Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
1Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION PERRY HOPMAN PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:18-cv-00074-KGB UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is defendant Union Pacific Railroad’s (“Union Pacific”) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50, 39, and 52 (Dkt. No. 193). At trial, Union Pacific timely moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 prior to submission of the case to the jury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1)(2). Plaintiff Perry Hopman responded to the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Feist v. Louisiana, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- Paul J. Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Stanbury Law Firm, P.A. v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2000
- Kassi Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Denise Felix, Naomi Felix and Irene Cooper as Administrators of the Estate of Denise Felix v. New York City Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.