Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al
1:2006cv00310 |
March 10, 2006 |
US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
Albany Office |
Lawrence E. Kahn |
Randolph F. Treece |
Real Property: Other |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
Defendant |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 102 Decision & ORDERED, that Defendants Motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 96 ) is GRANTED on Plaintiffs fourth claim; and it is further ORDERED, that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants on Plaintiffs pre-emption claim; and it is furthe r ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Dkt. No. 96) is GRANTED as to the following: that there is no conflict between the terms of the 1989 Order and the DOT Order, that the 1989 Order does not prohibit their compliance with the t erms of the DOT Order, and that the 1989 Order is superseded by the DOT Order to the extent that the 1989 Order imposes any obligations inconsistent with the DOT Order; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on January 22, 2010. (sas) |
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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transportation, Inc. et al | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.