User:Waldo/sandbox/Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall
 | 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[edit]
Facts[edit]
...
In lower courts[edit]
Lower courts held for Gottshall and Carlisle.
On XXX, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Supreme Court[edit]
Opinion[edit]
Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas held that...
Concurrence[edit]
Justice Souter wrote a separate concurrence to say...
Dissent[edit]
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stevens and Justice Blackmun, dissented to say...
Subsequent developments[edit]
On 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[edit]
Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:Law of negligence