Cases 1 - 5 of 5
CSX Transportation, Incorporat v. Robert Peirce, Jr.
as 13-2325
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT N. PEIRCE, JR. and LOUIS A. RAIMOND
Defendant:
ROBERT V. GILKISON, PEIRCE, RAIMOND & COULTER, PC, a/k/a Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., a Pennsylvania Professional Corporation, JOHN DOE(S) and others
Party-in-Interest:
RICHARD CASSOFF, M.D.
Intervenor:
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
CSX Transportation, Inc v. Ray Harron
as 13-2252
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellant:
RAY A. HARRON, Dr.
Defendant:
ROBERT N. PEIRCE, JR., LOUIS A. RAIMOND, ROBERT V. GILKISON and others
Party-in-Interest:
RICHARD CASSOFF, M.D.
Intervenor:
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
CSX Transportation, Inc v. Robert Peirce, Jr.
as 13-2235
Plaintiff - Appellee:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellant:
ROBERT N. PEIRCE, JR. and LOUIS A. RAIMOND
Defendant:
ROBERT V. GILKISON, PEIRCE, RAIMOND & COULTER, PC, a/k/a Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., a Pennsylvania Professional Corporation, JOHN DOE(S) and others
Party-in-Interest:
RICHARD CASSOFF, M.D.
Intervenor:
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Pierce
as 3:2012mc00079
Plaintiff:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Defendant:
Robert N. Peirce, Jr.
Movant:
Mercy St. Charles Hospital
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Robert Gilkison
as 09-2135
Plaintiff - Appellant:
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED
Defendant - Appellee:
ROBERT V. GILKISON, PEIRCE, RAIMOND & COULTER, PC, a/k/a Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., a Pennsylvania Professional Corporation, JOHN DOES and others
Party-in-Interest - None:
RICHARD CASSOFF, M.D.
Intervenor - None:
LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
Amicus Supporting Appellant:
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGISTS, AMERICAN TORT REFORM ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS and others
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.
