Legal Opinion
Krentz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided November 21, 2006No. 165 MAP 2005, 166 MAP 2005PublishedCited by 104 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice NEWMAN.
We are required to answer two questions that this Court has not yet had occasion to address: (1) whether the Occupied Crossing Rule should be abandoned as a judicial anachronism in light of the adoption of the Comparative Negligence Act; 1 and (2) whether the Federal Rail Safety Act 2 preempts 18 Pa.C.S. § 6907, the Pennsylvania “blocked crossing” statute. For the reasons that follow, we answer the first question in the negative and the second in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the Order of the Superior Court that affirmed in part and…
2Cases cited68 opinions
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCCSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by104 opinions
- Pyeritz v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Council of OakmontSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2013
- Keffer v. Bob Nolan's Auto Service, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Butler v. Charles Powers Estate ex rel. WarrenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
99 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.