Search for: "Railroad Company v. Tennessee" Results 1 - 20 of 40
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Mar 2011, 3:00 am by John Day
In other words, the defendants contend that railroad companies do not have a duty to ensure that railroad crossings provide a reasonable degree of visibility to motorists. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 2:00 am by John Day
This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases.  [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 4:54 pm
 It is also against Tennessee law to act in the capacity of a “contractor” in Tennessee when one is not properly licensed. [read post]
13 May 2019, 1:57 pm by SCOTUStalk
He later clarified with us that there were five: Illinois Central Railroad Company v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:35 pm by Anthony B. Cavender
High Point, Thomasville and Denton Railroad Company, 142 F. 3d 769 (1998)), the panel majority agreed that Consol failed to show that Georgia Power Company acted with the necessary intent to create “arranger” liability for itself. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 9:30 pm by Justin Daniel
Canadian National Railway/Illinois Central Railroad Company, a case set to be reconsidered by the DOL. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 11:08 pm by Timothy Sandefur, guest-blogging
Walters, a railroad company challenged the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that imposed various costs related to railway crossings, and the trial court engaged in extensive fact-finding before striking down the statute as irrational. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm by admin
In Union Pacific Railroad Company v. 174 Acres of Land,7 the court noted that the railroad company could bring a diversity action against an owner so long as the railroad is properly authorized to condemn property within the State.Discovery Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 governs discovery in federal condemnation actions, as well as other federal matters. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:45 pm by admin
In Union Pacific Railroad Company v. 174 Acres of Land,7 the court noted that the railroad company could bring a diversity action against an owner so long as the railroad is properly authorized to condemn property within the State.Discovery Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 governs discovery in federal condemnation actions, as well as other federal matters. [read post]
16 Apr 2010, 8:28 am by Erin Miller
Opinion below (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Disivion) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply Amicus brief of the Association of American Railroads Title: Zagorski v. [read post]