Cases

598 F.Supp.2d 955 (2009) Robert DAVIS, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 4:07CV00521 BSM. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division. February 18, 2009. Edward T. Oglesby, Oglesby Law Firm P.A., Little Rock, AR, Nelson Gregory Wolff, Andrew S. Williams, Julia M. Eades, Roger Clark Denton, Schlichter, Bogard & Den

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE LOCOMOTIVE VIDEO WITHOUT A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT OR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND UNION PACIFIC’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING LOCOMOTIVE VIDEOS ERIN WILDER-DOOMES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of the Locomotive Video without a Confidentiality Agreement or Pro

65 Cal.Rptr.3d 145 (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 940 Tim HOLLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. No. C052833. Court of Appeal of California, Third District. July 30, 2007. As Modified August 29, 2007. *146 Larry Lockshin, Esq., Larry Lockshin

*1002OPINION CARNEY, District Judge: ASARCO, LLC (“Asarco”) appeals the district court’s dismissal of its contribution action brought under § 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. Asarco seeks to recover from Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Union Pacific Corp. (togeth

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER EDWARD J. LODGE, District Judge. Before the Court in the above entitled matter are the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and a related Motion to Strike. The parties have filed their responsive briefing and the matter is ripe for the Court’s review. Having fully reviewed the record herein, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately

Opinion issued January 26, 2012.

Union Pacific petitioned for review of the court of appeals' judgment affirming the district court's order granting partial summary judgment for the Martins and striking Union Pacific's affirmative defenses of comparative negligence and fault of a nonparty. See Martin v. Union Pacific R.R.Co., 186 P.3d 61 (Colo.App. 2007). Relying on our holding in Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 20

13 So.3d 546 (2009) Faith BROOKS, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al. No. 2008-C-2035. Supreme Court of Louisiana. May 22, 2009. *548 Hymel, Davis & Petersen, L.J. Hymel, Jr., Michael Reese Davis, Baton Rouge, Tim Paul Hartdegen, Kenneth Alan Goodwin, New Orleans, for applicant. Fraser, Morris & Wheele

455 F.Supp.2d 998 (2006) Kenneth Eugene PETERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants. No. 06 512 CV W NKL. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division. October 5, 2006. *999 *1000 Bradley Kent Kavanaugh, Michael S. Ketchmark, Scott A. McCr

136 P.3d 1266 (2006) 2006 UT App 180 Carol CHRISTIANSEN, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-appellee, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee, and Cross-appellant. No. 20040991-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. May 4, 2006. *1268 C. Ryan Christensen, Robert G. Gilchrist, S. Brook Millard, Salt Lake

' EZELL, Judge. 11 Union Pacific Railroad, Dallas Stutes, PPG Industries, W.J. Peard, A.L. Great-house, Harry Hank, and Tommy Brown (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Defendants”) appeal a trial court decision setting a class boundary in a class action lawsuit against them. The Defendants assert that the trial court erred in defining the geographic boundary, as there was insufficient evidence in the record to supp

JUSTICE REGNIER delivered the Opinion of the Court. The cases of Davis, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (hereinafter Union Pacific) and Hull, Miesen, Pointer, Samter, Nelson, and Carter v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company (hereinafter Burlington Northern) have been consolidated for our consideration since similar issues are raised in each case. These consolidated appeals involve

LEONARD DAVIS, Chief Justice. Union Pacific Railroad Company (“the railroad”) appeals the trial court’s judgment in favor of a railroad worker, Sey-more Williams (‘Williams”), for damages caused by its negligence. The railroad raises three issues concerning foreseeability. We affirm. Background Williams was working at t

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge: The question before the en banc court is whether the preemption provision of a federal statute preempts a state law possessory action filed by a landowner to preserve a long-existing crossing over railroad tracks. We conclude that this landowner’s state law action, removed to federal court based on diversity of citizenship, is not preempted. Consequently, we REVERSE the district cou

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE JWSTL, LLC, ) No. ED110101 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis

BY THE COURT: A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental

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.

198 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 1999) UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY AND UTAH RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,v.STATE OF UTAH; UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION; BEAVER COUNTY; BOX ELDER COUNTY; CACHE COUNTY; CARBON COUNTY; DAVIS COUNTY; EMERY COUNTY; GRAND COUNTY; IRON COUNTY; JUAB COUNTY; MILLARD COUNTY; MORGAN COUNTY; SALT LAKE COUNTY; SUMMIT COUNTY; TOOELE COUNTY; UTAH COUNTY; WASATCH COUNTY; WASHINGTON COUNTY; WEBER COUNTY; MONTE MUNNS; KAREN J

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-

Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 1, 2022. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-21-00654-CV UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant V. JUAN ADAME, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF AMELIA ADAME (DECEASED); TONY ALVARADO; CAROLINE ANDREWS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF JEROME JOHNSON, SR. (DECEASED); VANESSA BA