 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 28, 1994 Decided June 24, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Waldo/sandbox/Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall |
| Citations | 512 U.S. 532 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
| Subsequent | XXX |
| Holding | |
| XXX | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor. Scalia, Kennedy, Souter |
| Concurrence | Souter |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Blackmun, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| 45 U.S.C. §§ 51-60 | |
Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall, 512 U.S. 532 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that XXX.
Background
editFacts
edit...
In lower courts
editLower courts held for Gottshall and Carlisle.
On XXX, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Supreme Court
editOpinion
editWriting for the majority, Justice Thomas held that...
Concurrence
editJustice Souter wrote a separate concurrence to say...
Dissent
editJustice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Blackmun, dissented to say...
Subsequent developments
editOn remand Carlisle's claim was dismissed as directed. Gottshall's claim, on remand for consideration under the zone of danger test, was similarly dismissed.
References
editCategory:United States Supreme Court cases Category:Law of negligence