Legal Opinion
Holmes v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.
District Court, N.D. Indiana
Decided September 17, 1992No. Civ. H91-251PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
LOZANO, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Support of Protective Order, filed on December 10, 1991, by Plaintiff, Will Holmes (“Holmes”). By his Motion, Holmes requests the Court to issue a protective order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), prohibiting Defendant, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Company (“E.J. & E.”) from any ex parte communication with Holmes, including any disciplinary hearings under the collective bargaining agreement between E.J. & E. and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, of which Holmes is a member. For the reasons…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway v. BuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Union Pacific Railroad v. SheehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Chapman v. South Buffalo Railway Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1999
- Stewart v. Burlington Northern RailroadDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1995
- Gust v. Soo Line RailroadDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1996