Union Pacific Railroad v. Sharp
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Hester v. CSX Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Jason M. Shots v. Csx Transportation, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Michael v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- 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.