Notes of Decisions
O & G Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 537 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 5× “The court upheld the validity of the indemnity provision, ruling that 49 U.S.C. § 28103 (b) (hereafter “ § 28103(b)”)— which allows rail passenger carriers to enter into liability-shifting agreements— preempted Connecticut General Statute § 52-572k(a) (frequently referred to…”
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza, 164 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 14503(e) (punitive damages for act of volunteer for non-profit agencies); 49 U.S.C. § 28103 (a)(1) (harm caused by rail carrier).”
Deweese v. Nat'l Rr Passenger Corp.(amtrak), 590 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “) In its own motion for summary judgment, Amtrak contended that any state-law sovereign immunity defense proffered by SEPTA is preempted by Amtrak’s enabling statute, 49 U.S.C. § 28103 , enacted as part of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (the “Reform Act”).”
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 697 F. Supp. 2d 213 (D. Mass. 2010).
· cites it 8× “at 1-17). In so doing, CSX contends, Congress has made clear its intent to preempt state laws that purport to nulli *230 fy or limit indemnification agreements authorized by federal law.”
Haynes v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 423 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” 49 U.S.C. § 28103 (a)(1). The statute then explains that any punitive damages that may be awarded must follow state law rules regarding damages.”
O&G Indus., Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 06-4719-cv (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2008).
· cites it 3× “In the first instance, the 39 district court (1) granted summary judgment to Amtrak on the ground 40 that the indemnity agreement between Amtrak and O&G was not invalid 41 under Connecticut General Statute § 52-572k(a), because the latter 42 is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 28103…”
Grove, J., Aplt. v. Port Auth., No. 32 WAP 2018 (Pa. Oct. 31, 2019).
“4 I note for illustrative purposes that when the Amtrak train derailment occurred in Philadelphia in 2015, killing eight individuals and injuring over two hundred passengers and crew, Congress acted swiftly to amend the statutory cap applicable to rail passenger transportation…”
Grove, J., Aplt. v. Port Auth., No. 31 WAP 2018 (Pa. Oct. 31, 2019).
“4 I note for illustrative purposes that when the Amtrak train derailment occurred in Philadelphia in 2015, killing eight individuals and injuring over two hundred passengers and crew, Congress acted swiftly to amend the statutory cap applicable to rail passenger transportation…”
Kyle v. Amtrak, No. 1:20-cv-05526 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2022).
“Specifically, plaintiff cites to 49 U.S.C. § 28103 , which states that punitive damages are available for actions against Amtrak where “the harm that is the subject of the action was carried out by the defendant with a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of…”
Deweese v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 645 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D. Pa. 2009).
“Amtrak contends that a section of its enabling statute, specifically, 49 U.S.C. § 28103 (b), preempts SEPTA’s claim that the Pennsylvania sovereign immunity statute prevents SEPTA from being held liable for contractual indemnity to Amtrak to the extent provided for in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.