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 706

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided August 13, 2009·No. Nos. 05-7039-cv(L), 07-4739-cv(XAP)·Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) appeals from a judgment entered September 27, 2007, 2007 WL 4859462, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

On appeal, Union Pacific argues, in effect, that our prior decision in Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad 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, 534-535 (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 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 a judgment entered September 27, 2007, 2007 WL 4859462, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

On appeal, Union Pacific argues, in effect, that our prior decision in Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad 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, 534-535 (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 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad, 341 F. App'x 706 (2d Cir. 2009).

Pincite

341 F. App'x 706 (Sompo Japan Insurance Co. of America v. Union Pacific Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related