Legal Opinion
Max D. Erskine v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided March 17, 1987No. 85-3478PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MILBURN, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Max Erskine appeals from the judgment of the district court denying his motion for a new trial. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
I
Plaintiff Max Erskine was employed by defendant Conrail from 1941 until February 1982. On May 27, 1980, he was working on a caboose with an angle cock that was allegedly defective. Later that day, in preparation for a switching operation, plaintiff attempted to release the air in the brake system by turning the angle cock. He testified that, because the angle cock was stiff, he had to…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Bellamy v. BradleyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Brady v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Coray v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- O'NEAL v. McAninchSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- McDougal v. McCammonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
- Philecia Barnes v. City of CincinnatiCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Atd Corporation v. Lydall, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Duane Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.