Worcester v. Springfield Terminal Railway
| JASON WORCESTER |
| SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| 14-1965 |
| September 17, 2014 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
 Worcester v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co.
|
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
107022680
OPINION issued by Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Appellate Judge; Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge and David J. Barron, Appellate Judge. Published. [14-1965]
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Worcester v. Springfield Terminal Railway | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff - appellee: JASON WORCESTER | |
| Represented By: | George Royle |
| Represented By: | Marc Wietzke |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant - appellant: SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY | |
| Represented By: | Glen L. Porter |
| Represented By: | Megan E. Randlett |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
