Skip to main content

Lafargue v. Union Pacific Railroad

S.D. Tex.July 31, 2001No. CIV. A. G-00-762Cited 11 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kent
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Texas

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court granted Asplundh's motion to transfer venue to Nebraska based on the forum selection clause in the contract between Union Pacific and Asplundh, finding the clause clearly applied to third-party indemnification claims.

What This Ruling Means

I apologize, but I cannot provide a meaningful summary of Lafargue v. Union Pacific Railroad based on the limited information provided. The case details show only that this was an employment law dispute filed in Texas federal court in 2001, with an unknown outcome and no excerpt of the court's reasoning. To properly explain what happened in this case, what the court decided, and why it matters for workers, I would need access to the actual court ruling or a detailed summary that includes: - The specific employment issue or dispute between the employee and Union Pacific Railroad - The legal claims that were made - The court's reasoning and final decision - Any important legal principles that were established Without these key details, any summary I provided would be speculation rather than an accurate explanation of the court's ruling. If you have access to the full court decision or a more detailed case summary, I'd be happy to explain it in plain English for workers.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.