Sorrell v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sorrell v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

170 S.W.3d 35, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 5, 2005

DocketED 84268

StatusPublished

This text of 170 S.W.3d 35 (Sorrell v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sorrell v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, 170 S.W.3d 35, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Sorrell (Sorrell) brought suit under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.A. Section 51, et seq, against Norfolk Southern Railway (Norfolk). The trial court entered judgment in favor of Sorrell pursuant to a jury verdict of $1,500,000.00. Norfolk appeals the judgment asserting seven claims of error.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Sorrell (Sorrell) brought suit under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C.A. Section 51, et seq, against Norfolk Southern Railway (Norfolk). The trial court entered judgment in favor of Sorrell pursuant to a jury verdict of $1,500,000.00. Norfolk appeals the judgment asserting seven claims of error.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 S.W.3d 35, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sorrell-v-norfolk-southern-railway-company-moctapp-2005.