Skip to main content

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Greentree Transportation Trucking Co. Dave Saunders Trucking, Greentree Transportation Trucking Company

3rd CircuitMay 16, 2002No. 00-3326Cited 80 times
Defendant WinGreentree Transportation Trucking Company$150,977.58 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Scirica, Ambro, Pollak
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific Railroad, holding that Union Pacific could properly sue Greentree Transportation under the Carmack Amendment and that no genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.

What This Ruling Means

Based on the limited information provided, this case involved Union Pacific Railroad Company and several trucking companies (Greentree Transportation and Dave Saunders Trucking) in what appears to be an employment-related dispute. The case was filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2002. Unfortunately, the excerpt provided doesn't contain enough details to explain what specific employment issue was at stake or how the court ruled. Without the actual court decision or case summary, it's impossible to determine what workplace rights or obligations were being disputed between the railroad company and the trucking firms. **What this means for workers:** Since the outcome and reasoning aren't available in the provided information, we cannot draw specific conclusions about how this case might affect workers' rights. Generally, cases involving multiple transportation companies often deal with issues like worker classification (employee vs. contractor), safety regulations, or jurisdictional questions about which employment laws apply. Workers in transportation industries should stay informed about court decisions in their field, as these cases can set important precedents for workplace protections and employer obligations. *Note: A complete analysis would require access to the full court decision.*

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.