Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Union Pacific Railroad v. Sharp

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 9, 1997No. 96-1096Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRobert L. Brown, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion on direct appeal but dissent from the majority’s conclusion on cross-appeal.

The issue on cross-appeal is whether federal funds used to pay for two crossbuck signs at a railroad crossing in Marianna in 1981 shields the railroad from all liability for what plaintiffs contend became an abnormally dangerous railroad crossing 12 years later. A subsidiary issue is whether this immunity exists for the railroad even when no survey of the crossing has been made by a diagnostic team during this 12-year period. I do not read the dictum in CSX Transportation, Inc. v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
  3. Jason M. Shots v. Csx Transportation, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
  4. Michael v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Rodney Kiemele Lillian Kiemele v. Soo Line Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996

6 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