Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
| Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc |
| Kansas City Southern Railway Company |
| 3:2010cv01629 |
| August 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Dallas |
| Sam A Lindsay |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
130
ORDER: The court determines that the 127 findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court overrules Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc.'s objections, grants Defendant's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 106 ), and awards Kansas City Southern Railway Company $969,934.33 in reasonable attorney's fees. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/16/2016) (trk)
|
|
Filing
126
Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated, the court denies Balfour Beatty Rail Inc.'s Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc. 110 ); denies as moot Balfour Beatty Rail Inc.'s Motion for Relief From the Judgment (Doc. 112 ); and denies Balfour Beatty Rail Inc.'s Motion to Add or Amend Findings of Fact (Doc. 114 ). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/17/2016) (ndt)
|
|
Filing
101
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure following a bench trial on the following claims by Plaintiff Balfour Beatty Rail Inc. ( "Plaintiff" or "BBRI") and Defendant The Kansas City Southern Railway Company ("Defendant" or "KCSR") that remained after summary judgment and were tried to the court. Except for attorney's fees, all other relief not expressly granted herein is denied, and the parties' remaining claims that survived summary judgment are dismissed with prejudice except to the extent set forth in this opinion. The court also denies as moot Defendant's Motion for Partial Judgment as a Matter of Law (Doc. 91 ). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 3/25/2016) (sss)
|
|
Filing
40
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 26 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/31/2012) (twd)
|
|
Filing
9
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 2 Motion to Remand to State Court filed by Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc. (see order) (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 9/29/2010) (tln)
|
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 Texas 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: Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc v. Kansas City 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: Balfour Beatty Rail, Inc | |
| Represented By: | Jeffrey A Ford |
| 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: Kansas City Southern Railway Company | |
| Represented By: | James Lanter |
| 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.
