Legal Opinion
Sorensen v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided January 28, 1998No. 1:96-cv-00004PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
HOMER, United States Magistrate Judge.
Defendant ConsoLdated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”) has moved to enforce an oral settlement agreement aLegedly reached with plaintiff David Sorensen (“Sorensen”). Docket No. 17. For the reasons which follow, that motion is granted.
I. Background
Sorensen commenced this action on January 2, 1996 by fiLng a complaint seeking damages against Conrail under the Federal Employers’ LiabiLty Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.; the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 2; and the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, 45 U.S.C. § 22 et seq. Docket…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Michael & Kathleen M. Ruotolo v. Internal Revenue ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Mary Ellen Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corporation, Gallavants, Inc., and Ralph SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- International Chemical Workers Union (Afl-Cio), Local No. 227, Plaintiff- Cross-Appellant v. Basf Wyandotte Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- United States v. BeebeSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Conway v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2002
- Garibaldi v. ANIXTER, INC.District Court, W.D. New York · 2008
- Bastedo v. North Rose-Wolcott Central School DistrictDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2013
- Ocasio v. Six Flags Great Escape, L.P.District Court, N.D. New York · 2022