James Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
JAMES D. SZEKERES |
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. |
12-3689 |
June 11, 2012 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
P.I.: Fed. Employers Liability |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6111828736 OPINION and JUDGMENT filed: The district court's ruling on Defendant's Rule 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is REVERSED, Defendant's motion for a new trial is DENIED, and the jury verdict is REINSTATED. Decision for publication. Richard Allen Griffin and Raymond M. Kethledge, Circuit Judges; Lawrence P. Zatkoff (AUTHORING), U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. |
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: James Szekeres v. CSX Transportation, Inc. | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff - appellant: JAMES D. SZEKERES | |
Represented By: | Robert B. Thompson |
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 - appellee: CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. | |
Represented By: | Joseph John Santoro |
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.