Timus v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

110 F. App'x 131
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedOctober 7, 2004
DocketNo. 03-7009
StatusPublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 131 (Timus v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Timus v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 110 F. App'x 131 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment on the jury verdict for appellee filed on December 13, 2002 be affirmed, because appellant has not demonstrated that the district court erred in declining to instruct the jury that any violation of the “white line rule” constituted negligence as a matter of law. See, e.g., 49 C.F.R. § 390.3(g)(2) (1996) (now found at § 390.3(f)(2)).

[132]*132Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

Related

§ 390.3 — General applicability.
49 C.F.R. § 390.3(g)(2)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F. App'x 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timus-v-washington-metropolitan-area-transit-authority-cadc-2004.