Search for: "United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Company"
Results 1 - 15
of 15
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2019, 3:57 pm
Macfarlane (UW Law class of 1922) spent several decades as counsel to the Northern Pacific Railway and its successor company, Burlington Northern. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 9:34 am
” The patent also states that the land was granted “subject to those rights for railroad purposes as have been granted to the Laramie[,] Hahn’s Peak & Pacific Railway Company, its successors or assigns. [read post]
12 Jan 2014, 9:06 pm
A central focus of both briefs is the Court’s 1942 ecision in Great Northern Railway v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 2:41 pm
United States; Shell Oil Company v. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 11:04 am
” See Northern Pacific Railway v. [read post]
29 Oct 2009, 8:41 am
BNSF Railway Co., 2009 WL 2731154 (D. [read post]
14 Nov 2021, 6:30 am
United States, 320 U. [read post]
8 May 2009, 4:02 pm
Supreme Court handed down its 8 to 1 decision in the much anticipated case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., et al v. [read post]
10 Feb 2025, 4:11 pm
For example, the Northern Pacific Railway, completed in 1883, relied heavily on Chinese, Irish, and Scandinavian laborers. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
United States, ex rel. [read post]
4 May 2009, 11:00 pm
Doyle, Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:16 pm
The company has agreed to pay a civil penalty of $310,000, of which $155,000 will be paid to the United States and the other $155,000 to Virginia. [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:46 pm
-based company that provides dairy products, warehousing, and distribution services. [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm
-based company that provides dairy products, warehousing, and distribution services. [read post]
31 Oct 2009, 4:06 pm
Paul, United States Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham fined the company $100,000 and ordered it to make a $50,000 community service payment to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to benefit the Rice Creek Watershed. [read post]
