Dugle et al v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Plaintiff: Paul Dugle and Megan Dugle
Defendant: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case Number: 3:2007cv00040
Filed: June 15, 2007
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: Frankfort Office
County: Shelby
Presiding Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 473 OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) 469 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/21/2011.(CBD)cc: COR
November 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 461 JUDGMENT: 1) Norfolk Southern Railway Company's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of June 4, 2010 (DE 294 ) is GRANTED; 2) Judgement is entered for the Defendant; 3) this matter is hereby DISMISSED; 4) this judgment is FINAL and APPEALABLE; and 5) this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 11/15/2010.(CBD)cc: COR
July 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 441 OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Mtn for Reconsideration by Dft Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("Norfolk") [DE 294] is GRANTED; 2) Court AMENDS its summary judgment ruling to find that crossing at issue was not ultrahazardous and that Norfolk did no t breach the duties owed by it to Paul Dugle at this private crossing; and 3) Mtn for Reconsideration filed by Plas [DE 336] regarding Motorist in Peril is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 07/23/2010. (Motions terminated: 336 MOTION for Reconsideration, 294 MOTION for Reconsideration and to Clarify).(AKR)cc: COR
July 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 431 OPINION & ORDER: that Norfolk's Mtn for Reconsideration [DE 294] is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part until after oral argument. The mtn is GRANTED to ext that it asks this Court to rule as a matter of law that Norfolk had no duty to cut or c lear the vegetation at this private crossing and the Court AMENDS its summary judgment ruling [DE 286] to find that Norfolk had no duty to cut or clear the vegetation near the crossing. The remaining portions of the mtn will be heard at a mtn hrg sched for July 19, 2010. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 07/19/2010.(AKR)cc: COR
July 7, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 421 OPINION & ORDER: DE 305 Plaintiffs Miscellaneous Motions in Limine are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as premature. DE 308 Defendants Motion to Exclude, in Part, the Kentucky State Police Investigation Report is GRANTED in part and DENIED in p art as premature. DE 313 Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Testimony of Recently Identified Fact Witnesses is DENIED. DE 314 Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Exclude 1887 Deed is DENIED. DE 319 Defendants Motion to Exclude the December 31, 1927 Val Map is D ENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 07/07/10. (Motions terminated: 319 MOTION in Limine to Exclude the Incorrect December 31, 1927 VAL Map and all Evidence that the Northern Boundary of NSRC's Right of Way Easement, Specifically in the Northwest Quadrant of the Private Crossing, 313 MOTION in Limine Regarding Untimely-Disclosed Witnesses, 308 MOTION in Limine to Exclude in Part, the Kentucky State Police Investigation Report Pertaining to the September 1, 2006 Grade Crossing Collision ---, 305 MOTION in Limine Regarding Miscellaneous Matters, 314 MOTION in Limine Regarding Late-Disclosed Deed.)(AKR)cc: COR
June 25, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 386 OPINION AND ORDER: Norfolks Motion in Limine to Exclude the Plaintiffs Computer- Generated Animations (DE 231 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/25/2010. (CBD)cc: COR
June 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 334 OPINION & ORDER: 1) Norfolks Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Jimmy Scott (DE 228 ) is GRANTED in part and DEFERRED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to statements regarding the law governing a train crews duty to sound the horn at a private c rossing and regarding a train crews duty to crew flag a crossing when the horn is not working and Scott is not permitted to testify on such matters; 2) The motion is DEFERRED as to Scotts testimony regarding industry practice as a hearing on this matter is necessary. At the pretrial conference of this matter on July 12, 2010, the Court SHALL SET this matter for a Daubert hearing to be conducted that week. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/15/2010.(CBD)cc: COR
June 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 291 OPINION AND ORDER: 1) Norfolks Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Seeking Dismissal of all Claims for Punitive Damages 178 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a) the Motion is GRANTED to the extent it asks the Court to rule that the jury should not be instructed that it may award punitive damages for the train crews failure to take action to save Deputy Dugle from injury after discovering his peril or for the train crews failure to slow the train on approach to the crossing; and b) the Motion is otherwise DENIED without prejudice. Norfolk may raise this motion again after evidence has been presented at trial. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 6/8/2010. (CBD)cc: COR
May 13, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 244 OPINION & ORDER: 1) the Magistrate Judge's Order dated November 2, 2009 is MODIFIED in the following manner: a) in the last paragraph of page 1, the phrase "no party shall" is substituted for the phrase "the Plaintiffs and the In tervening Plaintiffs shall not;" 2) in the second paragraph of page 2 of the Order, the phrase "all parties" is substituted for the phrase "counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Intervening Plaintiffs' Counsel" and for the phrase "the Plaintiffs and Intervening Plaintiffs." 2) The remainder of the Magistrate Judges Order, is ADOPTED by the Court, the Court finding that it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 5/13/2010. (DE 164 terminated) (CBD)cc: COR Modified doc. type to "opn" on 5/13/2010 (CBD).
April 27, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 102 OPINION & ORDER: 1) The Defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Rec. No. 80) is DENIED without prejudice as premature; 2) The Defendant may REFILE the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment after the close of discovery in this matt er; and 3) All other motions pending in this matter as of the date of this Order are DENIED as moot. (Motions terminated: 98 , 80 , 94 , 95 ). Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 4/27/2009.(AKR)cc: COR, MJ Atkins. Modified by text clean up on 4/27/2009 (AKR).
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dugle et al v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Paul Dugle
Represented By: Glenn Alan Cohen
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 ]
Plaintiff: Megan Dugle
Represented By: Glenn Alan Cohen
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: Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Represented By: Kathiejane Oehler
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.


Why Is My Information Online?