Legal Opinion

Lockley v. CSX Transportation Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 8, 2013PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY MUNDY, J.:

Appellant, CSX Transportation, Inc., appeals from the March 20, 2012 order, granting Appellee, Albert Lockley’s, motion to assess post-judgment interest from the date of the jury’s verdict, and denying its motion to strike the same. After careful review, we affirm.

The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history as follows.

[Appellee], age 53, commenced this litigation against [Appellant], pursuant to the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60, and the Federal Locomotive Inspection Act (FLIA), 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq.

[Appellee]…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. BonjornoSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  4. PETOW v. WarehimeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd., Cross-Appellant v. Occidental Crude Sales, Inc., Cross-Appellee. Robert B. Weintraub, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. DillSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  2. Dennis E. Kinworthy v. Soo Line Railroad Company, d/b/a CP Rail SystemSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  3. Kinworthy v. Soo Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  4. Sunstone Realty v. Bodell ConstructionUtah Supreme Court · 2024
  5. Terry Boyd v. BNSF Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014

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

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

Powered by the Exa API