George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange

866 F.2d 111, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 604, 1989 WL 4494
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 26, 1989
Docket84-1185
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 866 F.2d 111 (George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange, 866 F.2d 111, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 604, 1989 WL 4494 (4th Cir. 1989).

Opinions

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:

This court sitting en banc previously affirmed the judgment of the district court as to liability and damages. Aldridge v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 814 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.1987) (en banc) (Phillips, J., concurring; Hall and Ervin, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part; Russell, Widener and Chapman, dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated sub nom. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. v. Aldridge, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2812, 100 L.Ed.2d 913 (1988). The United States Supreme Court has now remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its decision in Monessen Southwest Ry. v. Morgan, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 1837, 100 L.Ed.2d 349 (1988). In our view, Monessen demonstrates that we erred in affirming the district court’s judgment that Aldridge’s damages need not have been adjusted to present value. Once again, we find no reason to disturb the jury’s findings and the district court’s rulings on liability issues, but reverse that portion of the judgment relating to damages and remand it to the district court for a retrial on that issue in accordance with the views of the Supreme Court expressed in Monessen.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewis v. Ukran
California Court of Appeal, 2019
Lewis v. Ukran
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 839 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)
Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks
771 A.2d 446 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Casale
441 S.E.2d 212 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1994)
Dixon v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
990 F.2d 1440 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
Dixon v. Csx Transportation, Incorporated
990 F.2d 1440 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
Failing v. Burlington Northern Railroad
815 P.2d 974 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
866 F.2d 111, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 604, 1989 WL 4494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-o-aldridge-and-daisy-m-aldridge-v-baltimore-and-ohio-railroad-ca4-1989.