Search for: "Felas v State"
Results 1 - 20
of 110
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2017, 8:57 pm
"Issue: Whether a state court may decline to follow the Supreme Court's decision in Daimler AG v. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 5:56 am
This is an interesting case discussing the difference between ordinary negligence cases and FELA cases, the application of federal and state law in FELA, and the standard for upholding a FELA award. [read post]
4 Jun 2009, 1:31 am
Co. v.] [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 3:00 am
Baker v. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 8:08 am
A recent case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Lynch v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 1:03 pm
Tyrrell [SCOTUSblog materials] that the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) does not apply to out-of-state corporations. [read post]
9 Oct 2009, 12:24 pm
I can grok that.But it nonetheless seems a little strange to say -- as Justice Nicholson does here -- that because FELA is a substantive statute with special rules, the applicable rule in state court is not a FELA-specific rule, but rather Rule 68. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 5:31 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:24 pm
Supreme Court ruled in CSX Transportation v. [read post]
30 May 2017, 7:51 am
Co. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2013, 5:59 am
In another FELA decision in the case of Dennis v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 11:05 am
The court states that FELA was inapplicable to this case. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 7:53 am
Goranowski v. [read post]
18 Sep 2016, 2:29 pm
” Grunenthal v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 8:30 am
Soon, the United States Supreme Court will review whether that standard is too lax when it considers McBride v. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 9:03 am
Federal Law Preserves State Negligence Claims Ultimately, in Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. [read post]
31 May 2017, 7:01 am
The United States Supreme Court, in BNSF Railway Co. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2017, 4:05 pm
Supreme Court, May 30, 2017) (reversing and remanding Montana Supreme Court holding that the state could exercise personal jurisdiction over BNSF in connection with FELA act because the company is not incorporated or headquartered in Montana, nor are its activities in the state sufficient for the exercise of jurisdiction) *Tucker v. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 9:34 am
Co. v. [read post]
