Legal Opinion
DeBruce Grain, Inc. v. Union Pacific Railroad
District Court, W.D. Missouri
Decided October 30, 1997No. 97-1413-CV-W-3PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SMITH, District Judge.
Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, intended to (in the words of Plaintiff’s proposed Order) restrain Defendant “from continuing to breach its statutory and contractual obligations to supply rail cars” to Plaintiff’s grain elevators and “to immediately commence and continue delivery of rail cars ti those facilities” in accordance with a particular tariff. For the following reasons, the Motion (Doc. #4) is denied, and the case is dismissed…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- United States of America and Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States of America v. McDonnell Douglas CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
- Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. BarlowCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pejepscot Industrial Park, Inc. v. Maine Central RailroadCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Fitzpatrick v. Morgan Southern, Inc.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2003
- Miller Ex Rel. Bankruptcy Estate of Hyman Freightways, Inc. v. WD-40 Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
- OWNER-OPERATOR INDEP. DRIVERS v. United Van Lines, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 2007
- Pejepscot Industrial Park, Inc. v. Maine Central RailroadDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.