UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION ET AL.

v.

MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (32 total)

• Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 491 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1989)
  …nance of Way Employees, Lodge 16 v. Burlington Northern R. Co., 802 F. 2d, at 1022; see also Maine Central R. Co. v. United Transportation Union, 787 F. 2d 780, 783 (CA1) (“The degree of scrutiny, while ill-defined, is clearly light”), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 848 (1986). “To the extent that abstract words can deal with concrete cases, we think that the concept embodied in the language adopted by these . . . Courts of Appeals is correct.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U. S. 412, 421 (1978). Where a…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Rakovich v. Wade, 850 F.2d 1180 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …he nonmovant. The trial court must view the evidence and make all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and if reasonable jurors could differ on the conclusions drawn therefrom, the case must go to the jury.”), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848, 107 S.Ct. 172, 93 L.Ed.2d 109 (1986) (two petitions for certio-rari denied, Nos. 86-27 and 86-29). “A directed verdict in favor of a defendant, then, is proper only if reasonable people, viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiff and disrega…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• United States v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282 (7th Cir. 1988)
  …appeal. A district court’s decision on the admissibility of expert testimony will not be reversed absent a clear showing that the judge abused his or her discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Devine, 787 F. 2d 1086, 1088 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 848, 107 S.Ct. 170, 93 L.Ed.2d 107 (1986). “In admitting or excluding expert evidence under [Federal Rule of Evidence 702] the district court has broad discretion and should be affirmed unless the decision is manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Lund…