Legal Opinion

Haworth v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co.

District Court, E.D. Washington

Decided August 19, 2003No. CS-02-0344-JLQPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

QUACKENBUSH, Senior District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Ct. Rec.15). Plaintiff seeks to establish Defendant’s liability as a matter of law under the Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq. Plaintiff also seeks to preclude Defendant’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence. Plaintiff is represented by James K. Vucinovich. Defendant is represented by Daniel L. Kinerk.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Counsel are cautioned that they must strictly observe Local Rule 7.1 which prohibits the citation…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Rogers v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  5. Lilly v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Balough v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 2011
  2. Deso v. CSX Transportation, Inc.District Court, N.D. New York · 2011
  3. Reed v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2004
  4. Frastaci v. Vapor Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2007
  5. MILESCO v. Norfolk Southern Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2011

5 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