Legal Opinion

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Ritter

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided January 7, 2009No. Civil Action 07-1370 (RMU), 07-1371(RMU)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.

Granting the Plaintiff’s Motions for Reconsideration

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff, Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”), seeks declaratory relief proscribing successor liability for personal injury claims stemming from conduct prior to its formation. The defendants, who currently have personal injury claims pending in Pennsylvania state court, are former employees of Erie Lackawanna — a railroad company whose assets were transferred to Conrail pursuant to the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (“Rail Act”), 45 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
  2. Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. FirestoneCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
  3. Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2004
  4. Charles E. McDowell Jr. v. Arthur Calderon, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2003

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. RAY, EX REL. BOYDDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
  2. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. RayDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API