Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad

Second Circuit

Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad

341 F. App'x 707

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2009

DocketNo. 07-5190-cv

StatusPublished

This text of 341 F. App'x 707 (Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad, 341 F. App'x 707 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) appeals from an judgment entered October 23, 2007, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

On appeal, Union Pacific argues, in effect, that our prior decision in Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railraod Co. (“Sompo I”), 456 F.3d 54 (2d Cir.2006), was wrongly decided and should be vacated. However, “[t]his court is bound by a decision of a prior panel unless and until its rationale is overruled, implicitly or expressly, by the Supreme Court or this court en banc.” In re Sokolowski, 205 F.3d 532, 534-35 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (alteration in original and internal quotation marks omitted). Union Pacific points to no intervening Supreme Court decision that would call into question the rationale of Sompo I. Therefore, we are bound by the prior precedent of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the [709]*709amended judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) appeals from an judgment entered October 23, 2007, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

On appeal, Union Pacific argues, in effect, that our prior decision in Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railraod Co. (“Sompo I”), 456 F.3d 54 (2d Cir.2006), was wrongly decided and should be vacated. However, “[t]his court is bound by a decision of a prior panel unless and until its rationale is overruled, implicitly or expressly, by the Supreme Court or this court en banc.” In re Sokolowski, 205 F.3d 532, 534-35 (2d Cir.2000) (per curiam) (alteration in original and internal quotation marks omitted). Union Pacific points to no intervening Supreme Court decision that would call into question the rationale of Sompo I. Therefore, we are bound by the prior precedent of this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the [709]*709amended judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 F. App'x 707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sompo-japan-insurance-co-of-america-v-union-pacific-railroad-ca2-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack