Cases

904 N.E.2d 1003 (2009) Rodney L. DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 1-08-2010. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division. March 9, 2009. *1004 Law Offices of William B. Kohn, William B. Kohn, of Counsel, Chicago, IL, Pratt & Tobin, P.C., Gregory M. Tobin,

530 F.3d 936 (2008) Charles DANIELS and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, Central Region, Appellants v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY et al., Appellees. No. 07-5114. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Argued March 13, 2008. Decided July 1, 2008. Thomas Geoghegan argued the cause for the appellants. Edgar J

480 F.Supp.2d 191 (2007) Charles DANIELS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 06-939(RCL). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 29, 2007. *192 Edgar Neville James, James & Hoffman, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. *193

OPINION MICHAEL MASSENGALE, Justice. Appellant Richard Haynes sued his employer, appellee Union Pacific Railroad Company, for injuries he sustained when a railcar struck his personal vehicle as he was leaving the railroad yard. After a jury trial, Haynes was awarded damages of $456,300 plus interest. Both parties appealed. Among other issues, Haynes cont

JUSTICE COTTER dissents. ¶34 I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to affirm the order granting the Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion for summary judgment. I would reverse the decision and remand the case for a factual determination by the jury as to whether the statute of limitations has run. ¶35 Summary judgment is proper only

OPINION AND ORDER PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge This Court previously dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice for fail *5 ure to state a claim. After plaintiffs filed a substantially revised amended complaint, defendants Union Pacific Railr

SMITH, Circuit Judge, When Congress expressly delegates rulemaking authority in a regulatory sphere to one agency, and that delegation is declared unconstitutional, may a different agency provide regulatory guidance in the same sphere on its own initiative? The Surface Transportation Board (“Board”) said yes—and on that basis it promulgated a rule defining “on-time performance” under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improveme

277 P.3d 1221 (2012) 2012 MT 98 Phillip R. BOUDE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. No. DA 11-0412. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted on Briefs February 15, 2012. Decided May 2, 2012. *1222 For Appellant: John W. Hart, Rossbach Hart, P.C.

268 P.3d 650 (2011) 246 Or. App. 624 Daniel BAGGARLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. 081116650; A145381. Court of Appeals of Oregon. Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011. Decided November 23, 2011. *651 Maureen Leonard argued the cause for appe

OPINION PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has carefully considered the arguments made by the parties in their papers and the oral arguments presented by counsel in court on October 26, 2012.

311 S.W.3d 843 (2010) Leroy PALMER, Respondent, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant. No. ED 92841. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four. March 30, 2010. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 4, 2010. Application for Transfer Denied June 29, 2010.

OPINION JIM SHARP, Justice. In this Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) case,1 Union Pacific Railroad Company appeals from the final judgment rendered on the jury’s verdict in favor of the estate of Gerónimo Gutierrez, deceased, Amelia Gutierrez and Adrian Gutierrez, individually in their capacities as dependents of Gerónimo Gutierrez, deceased, and Amelia Gutierrez, in

501 F.3d 794 (2007) George D. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Railroad Adjustment Board, and Transportation Communications International Union (TCU), Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 05-3291, 06-1766, 06-2151. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Submitted April 13, 2007. Decided September 5, 2007. Rehear

Case Number: 08-02-00076-CV 04/29/2005 Case stored in record room 01/20/2005 M/E/T to file petition for review disposed Granted 01/18/2005 M/E/T to file petition for review filed [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 164 OPINION This is an appeal from a jury verdict in a case arising under the Texas Commis

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Glenn E. Jones sued Union Pacific Railroad Company for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, after he was dismissed from his position for gross insubordination following an incident at the rail yard where he worked. Jones moved for summary judgment and Union Pacific responded. The district court granted

31 Kan.App. 2d 906 (2003) 75 P.3d 266 JAMES E. STARR, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee/Cross-appellant, and ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND CORPORATION, Appellant/Cross-appellee. No. 89,597 Court of Appeals of Kansas Opinion filed August 29, 2003. *907 Stanley N. Wilkins, and Dav

381 F.Supp.2d 733 (2005) George D. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Transportation Communications Union, National Railroad Adjustment Board, Defendants. No. 04 C 1870. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. July 15, 2005. *734 George D. Mitchell, Chicago, IL, pro se. Thomas Willia

258 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2001) TOM COONEY, JR.; FRANCIS F. BOGANOWSKI; DAVID M. BURKE; HENRY F. KAMMERER; JEANINE K. LENDT; LOREN C. MATHISON; RUTH NUSSER; ANTHONY H. PACZOSA; DARWIN H. PETERSON; DON P. ROCK; DANIEL R. SINNOTT; HOMER T. SMITH; ROGER O. STAPES; WILLIAM S. SUS; MICHAEL TREAT; HAROLD G. WAGNER; BETTY B. WILLMER, APPELLANTS,v.UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLEE. No. 00-3425

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 415 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS 1, III & IV No. CV-24-155 Opinion Delivered September 10, 2025 JEREMY LEE HARGROVE APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION V.

AMENDED ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY WILSON, District Judge. Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions and Supplemental Motion for Sanctions, docket numbers 111 and 132. The parties briefed the issues and presented evidence at hearings on February 16, March 5, and March 6, 2001. The parties subsequently provided additional briefs and affidavits. T