Crookham v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
MANOS, District Judge.
The plaintiff has brought this action under the court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1970), and seeks the enforcement of certain employee protection provisions of Title V of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (RRRA), 45 U.S.C. §§ 771-779 (Supp. V 1975). The defendant maintains that employee claims under Title V of the RRRA can only be heard by the National Railroad Adjustment Board, and it has therefore moved for summary judgment on the ground the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
I
The RRRA consolidated the assets of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Andrews v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Slocum v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Order of Railway Conductors of America v. PitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1946
3Cited by5 opinions
- Local 194 C & T, United Transportation Union v. Consolidated Rail Corporation and United Transportation UnionCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1982
- Leibitzke v. Consolidated Rail Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1982
- Consolidated Rail Corp. v. American Train Dispatchers Ass'nDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
- Crookham v. Consolidated Rail CorpCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Johnson v. Aeropure Acquisition, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 2024