WOMACK v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, 4:09-CV-04116. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120327938
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 49) and Defendant has replied. (ECF No. 52). Upon consideration, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court finds that the motion should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. 20301
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 49) and Defendant has replied. (ECF No. 52). Upon consideration, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court finds that the motion should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. 20301 ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff has filed a response (ECF No. 49) and Defendant has replied. (ECF No. 52). Upon consideration, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of even date, the Court finds that the motion should be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim under the Federal Safety Appliance Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20301 et seq., is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
