Legal Opinion

Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad

District Court, D. Colorado

Decided March 6, 1995No. Civ. A. 93-K-600, 93-K-601 and 94-K-1122PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM: OPINION AND ORDER

KANE, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Yoaman Smith seeks entry of a protective order or preliminary injunction to prevent Union Pacific (UP) from requiring him to attend a “back-to-work” physical examination by UP doctors or from disciplining him pursuant to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement for failing to do so. In the alternative, Smith seeks an order in limine precluding UP from offering the results of either proceeding as evidence in the pending trial of Smith’s FELA claims. Smith contends UP is “seizing” an opportunity to discharge him for failing…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ehrenhaus v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
  2. United States v. Daryl RieweCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1982
  3. Universal Motor Oils Co., Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1990
  4. Elliott v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.District Court, D. Colorado · 1994

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.California Court of Appeal · 2008
  2. Riensch v. Union Pacific RailroadDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1998
  3. Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1996
  4. Bernal v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2000
  5. Stewart v. Burlington Northern RailroadDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1995

3 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