Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Elston v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences2012In Elston, 74 P.3d at 487 , the Court of Appeals of Colorado held that a railroad employee’s FELA claim was not precluded by FRSA regulations. 2012In Elston, 74 P.3d at 487 , the Court of Appeals of Colorado held that a railroad employee’s FELA claim was not precluded by FRSA regulations. | 1 | 2 |
Davis v. Union Pacific Railroadgreen1 sentence2013R.R., Inc., 560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.2009) ("Whether a federal law preempts a state law or precludes another federal law is a question of law which we review de novo.”); Davis, 598 F.Supp.2d at 956 ("The basic facts in this case are undisputed, and the outstanding issue is purely a legal question of whether plaintiff's FELA claim is precluded by the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) regulation regarding ballast.”); cf. Melton v. BNSF Ry., 322 S.W.3d 174, 190 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010) (stating that "preemption is a question of law”); Kohn v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 77 P.3d 809, 811 (Co | 1 | 1 |
Kohn v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroadgreen1 sentence2013R.R., Inc., 560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.2009) ("Whether a federal law preempts a state law or precludes another federal law is a question of law which we review de novo.”); Davis, 598 F.Supp.2d at 956 ("The basic facts in this case are undisputed, and the outstanding issue is purely a legal question of whether plaintiff's FELA claim is precluded by the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) regulation regarding ballast.”); cf. Melton v. BNSF Ry., 322 S.W.3d 174, 190 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010) (stating that "preemption is a question of law”); Kohn v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 77 P.3d 809, 811 (Co | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Cowden v. BNSF Railway Companygreen2 sentences2013See Cowden, 690 F.3d at 892-93 (taking this language from Easterwood and placing the burden of proof on the railroad company advocating preclusion of a FELA claim by a FRSA regulation). 2013See Cowden, 690 F.3d at 892-93 (taking this language from Easterwood and placing the burden of proof on the railroad company advocating preclusion of a FELA claim by a FRSA regulation). | 1 | 1 |
Nickels v. Grand Trunk Western RR, Inc.green1 sentence2013R.R., Inc., 560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.2009) ("Whether a federal law preempts a state law or precludes another federal law is a question of law which we review de novo.”); Davis, 598 F.Supp.2d at 956 ("The basic facts in this case are undisputed, and the outstanding issue is purely a legal question of whether plaintiff's FELA claim is precluded by the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) regulation regarding ballast.”); cf. Melton v. BNSF Ry., 322 S.W.3d 174, 190 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010) (stating that "preemption is a question of law”); Kohn v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 77 P.3d 809, 811 (Co | 1 | 1 |
Melton v. BNSF Railway Co.green1 sentence2013R.R., Inc., 560 F.3d 426, 429 (6th Cir.2009) ("Whether a federal law preempts a state law or precludes another federal law is a question of law which we review de novo.”); Davis, 598 F.Supp.2d at 956 ("The basic facts in this case are undisputed, and the outstanding issue is purely a legal question of whether plaintiff's FELA claim is precluded by the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) regulation regarding ballast.”); cf. Melton v. BNSF Ry., 322 S.W.3d 174, 190 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2010) (stating that "preemption is a question of law”); Kohn v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 77 P.3d 809, 811 (Co | 1 | 1 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBridegreen2 sentences2011Sand et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 89.02, pp. 89-38, 89-40 (2010); see also McBride, 131 S.Ct. at 2639-40 (similar instructions approved by every federal circuit that reviews FELA judgments); Collins, 417 Md. at 251 , 9 A.3d 56 (“A prima facie case of negligence under FELA is based on the common law elements in accordance with federal law: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.1-]C ]” (Footnotes omitted.)). 2011Sand et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 89.02, pp. 89-38, 89-40 (2010); see also McBride, 131 S.Ct. at 2639-40 (similar instructions approved by every federal circuit that reviews FELA judgments); Collins, 417 Md. at 251 , 9 A.3d 56 (“A prima facie case of negligence under FELA is based on the common law elements in accordance with federal law: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.1-]C ]” (Footnotes omitted.)). | 1 | 1 |
Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio R. Co.green1 sentence1984Cf. Price v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 618 F.2d 1059, 1060 (4th Cir.1980) (if claimant is a longshoreman his exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA and the District Court was without jurisdiction over his FELA claim); Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 560 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C.1983) (if plaintiff’s injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that Act and defendant cannot be liable under the FELA); Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 531 F.Supp. 11, 13 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 670 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1982) (FELA available to plaintiff but | 1 | 1 |
John B. Price, Jr. v. Norfolk and Western Railway Companygreen1 sentence1984Cf. Price v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 618 F.2d 1059, 1060 (4th Cir.1980) (if claimant is a longshoreman his exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA and the District Court was without jurisdiction over his FELA claim); Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 560 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C.1983) (if plaintiff’s injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that Act and defendant cannot be liable under the FELA); Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 531 F.Supp. 11, 13 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 670 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1982) (FELA available to plaintiff but | 1 | 1 |
Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Co.green1 sentence1984Cf. Price v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 618 F.2d 1059, 1060 (4th Cir.1980) (if claimant is a longshoreman his exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA and the District Court was without jurisdiction over his FELA claim); Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 560 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C.1983) (if plaintiff’s injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that Act and defendant cannot be liable under the FELA); Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 531 F.Supp. 11, 13 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 670 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1982) (FELA available to plaintiff but | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller
green
2 sentences2012Indeed, as Judge Moylan pointed out in Miller, 159 Md.App. at 172 , 858 A.2d 1025 : Here, defendant has failed to point to a clear congressional directive that would lead us to interpret the FRSA track safety standards as precluding plaintiffs FELA claim. 2011In a FELA claim, a plaintiff is required “ ‘to present more than a scintilla of evidence in order to create a jury question on the issue of employer liability, but not much more.’ ” 12 Miller, 159 *479 Md.App. at 224, 858 A.2d 1025 (quoting Aparicio v. Norfolk & W. | 5 | 2008–2013 |
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
green
2 sentences2019Relying primarily on Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994), Mr. Crowe argues that application of the 1972 Amendments to him would result in an unlawful retroactive application of the LHWCA, depriving him of his FELA claim. 2019Relying primarily on Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994), Mr. Crowe argues that application of the 1972 Amendments to him would result in an unlawful retroactive application of the LHWCA, depriving him of his FELA claim. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Norris v. Central of Georgia Railroad
green
2 sentences2013In support of that argument, CSX relied primarily on a Georgia Court of Appeals’ case which held: “To the extent that [the employee’s] FELA claim rests upon different ways by which [the railroad] might have supported the mainline track to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 , the negligence claim is precluded.” Id. at 261, 978 A.2d at 803 (quoting Norris, 635 S.E.2d at 183 ) (quotation marks omitted). 2012In Norris, 635 S.E.2d at 183 , the Court of Appeals of Georgia held that a railroad employee’s FELA claim was precluded by 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 . | 2 | 2012–2013 |
Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad
green
2 sentences2014Callen, 332 U.S. at 626-28 , 68 S.Ct. 296 . 2014Callen, 332 U.S. at 626-28 , 68 S.Ct. 296 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
green
1 sentence2014Wicker, supra, 142 F.3d at 693 . 7 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Bickerstaff
green
2 sentences2013In support of that argument, CSX relied primarily on a Georgia Court of Appeals’ case which held: “To the extent that [the employee’s] FELA claim rests upon different ways by which [the railroad] might have supported the mainline track to comply with 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 , the negligence claim is precluded.” Id. at 261, 978 A.2d at 803 (quoting Norris, 635 S.E.2d at 183 ) (quotation marks omitted). 2013But the Court of Special Appeals concluded that Norris was “entirely consistent with [its] decision in Miller [which] recognized that 49 C.F.R. § 213.103 governs the ballast along the mainline track and not the ballast in the rail yard.” Id. at 262-63, 978 A.2d at 803-04 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Collins v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
green
2 sentences2011Sand et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 89.02, pp. 89-38, 89-40 (2010); see also McBride, 131 S.Ct. at 2639-40 (similar instructions approved by every federal circuit that reviews FELA judgments); Collins, 417 Md. at 251 , 9 A.3d 56 (“A prima facie case of negligence under FELA is based on the common law elements in accordance with federal law: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.1-]C ]” (Footnotes omitted.)). 2011Sand et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Civil P 89.02, pp. 89-38, 89-40 (2010); see also McBride, 131 S.Ct. at 2639-40 (similar instructions approved by every federal circuit that reviews FELA judgments); Collins, 417 Md. at 251 , 9 A.3d 56 (“A prima facie case of negligence under FELA is based on the common law elements in accordance with federal law: duty, breach, foreseeability, and causation.1-]C ]” (Footnotes omitted.)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Joseph J. Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company
green
2 sentences2004The problem of loose language seems to have stemmed from several cases interpreting Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2000), a case in which a FELA claim was brought on the same grounds of 1) excessive speed and 2) an unsafe crossing that had led to the preemption holdings in Easterwood and Shanklin . 2004The problem of loose language seems to have stemmed from several cases interpreting Waymire v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., 218 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2000), a case in which a FELA claim was brought on the same grounds of 1) excessive speed and 2) an unsafe crossing that had led to the preemption holdings in Easterwood and Shanklin . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Leo T. Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Company
green
1 sentence1984Cf. Price v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 618 F.2d 1059, 1060 (4th Cir.1980) (if claimant is a longshoreman his exclusive remedy is under the LHWCA and the District Court was without jurisdiction over his FELA claim); Harmon v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 560 F.Supp. 914, 915 (D.D.C.1983) (if plaintiff’s injury is covered by the LHWCA, his exclusive remedy lies in receipt of benefits under that Act and defendant cannot be liable under the FELA); Vogelsang v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 531 F.Supp. 11, 13 (D.Md.1981), aff'd, 670 F.2d 1347 (4th Cir.1982) (FELA available to plaintiff but | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.