Legal Opinion
MacK v. East Camden & Highland Railroad
District Court, W.D. Tennessee
Decided December 10, 2003No. 01-0325-TPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TODD, District Judge.
Plaintiff James E. Mack, has filed this action pursuant to the Federal Employers Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (“FELA”), for personal injuries that he allegedly received during his employment with East Camden & Highland Railroad Company (“East Camden”). Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has responded to the motion, and Defendant has filed a reply to the re sponse. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Motions for summary judgment are governed by Rule 56 of the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Marchetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Luman v. ITS TECHNOLOGIES & LOGISTICS, LLCMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
- Haywood v. BrennanDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2020