Legal Opinion
Rigney v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided August 26, 2025No. 3:22-cv-00342Unknown
1Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MATTHEW RIGNEY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 3:22-cv-00342 ) CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is CSX Transportation, Inc.’s (“CSX”) Motion for a More Definite Statement, brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). (Doc. No. 150). CSX’s Motion (Doc. No. 150) is fully briefed and ripe for review. (Doc. Nos. 150, 154–55). For the following reasons, CSX’s Motion (Doc. No. 150) will be denied. I. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS1 The instant…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Weil v. NearySupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Wayne County v. Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Control BoardCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1988
- Alexander L. Baxter v. Jim Rose, James Davis, Nicky Jordan, Scotty Smith, Bobby Pevahouse, Bert Staggs, and Jim BevisCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002
- Stryker Corporation v. Christopher RidgewayCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Norcold, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.