Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query railroad returned 33 results.

	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Concurrence]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Opinion]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Dissent]
	RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN COMPANY [Opinion]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS V. PULLMAN COMPANY [Syllabus]
	ERIE RAILROAD CO. V. TOMPKINS [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	UNITED STATES. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD V. FRITZ [Syllabus]
	METRO NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD CO. V. BUCKLEY, 521 U.S. 424 (1997) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEBRON V. NATIONAL R.R. PASSENGER CORP., 513 U.S. 374 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. GEORGIA STATE BD. OFEQUALIZATION [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS [Syllabus] Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
	BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS V. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. CO.,, 516 U.S. 152 (1996) [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. HILES, 516 U.S. 400 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSP., INC. V. MCBRIDE [Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SHANKLIN [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals properly applied this Court's decision in CSX Transportation, Inc. V. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993), when it held, in acknowledged conflict with decisions of three other circuits, that claims of negligence based on inadeguate warning devices at a railway grade crossing are not preempted even through the warning devices at the crossing were installed with federal funds under a project approved by the federal government."
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CV. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. V. ADAMS [Syllabus] Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act-which excludes from that Act's coverage "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce"-exempts the employment contracts of transportation workers, but not other employment contracts.
	[Syllabus]
	558 U. S. ____ (2009) [Syllabus]
	IDAHO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] The National Government holds title, in trust for the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to lands underlying portions of Lake Coeur d'Alene and the St. Joe River.
	STEEL CO. V. CITIZENS FOR BETTER ENVIRONMENT, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) [Syllabus]
	CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. V. ALABAMA DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	UNICODE VALUE='8195'>KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LTD. V. REGAL-BELOIT CORP. [Syllabus]
	LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. [Syllabus]
	MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE [Syllabus]
	JEFFERSON V. CITY OF TARRANT, ALA., 522 U.S. 75 (1997) [Syllabus]
	FREE ENTERPRISE FUND V. PUBLIC COMPANYACCOUNTING OVERSIGHT BD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. JAMES N. KIRBY,PTY LTD. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SAN REMO HOTEL, L. P. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SANFRANCISCO [Syllabus]
	GLOBAL CROSSING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. V.METROPHONES TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]