No. 19-271
Catherine Stouffer, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Response Waived
Tags: administrative-law agency-deference federal-agency-deference federal-highway-administration federal-preemption federal-railroad-administration federal-regulations railroad-safety regulatory-interpretation state-federal-agreement state-law-claims state-railroad-agreement state-railroad-agreements warning-time
Key Terms:
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Arbitration JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-10-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
Should this Court grant, vacate, and remand because the court below did not interpret 49 C.F.R. 234.225 in the manner that Kisor requires?
Should FRA regulations be interpreted in concert with FHWA regulations to enforce safety standards in "State-railroad agreements," rather than "supplant" them?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should FRA regulations be interpreted in concert with FHWA regulations to enforce safety standards in 'State-railroad agreements,' rather than 'supplant' them?
Docket Entries
2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-09
Waiver of right of respondent Union Pacific Railroad Co. to respond filed.
2019-08-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2019)
Attorneys
Catherine Stouffer, et al.
Douglas Wharton Alexander — Alexander Dubose et al., Petitioner
Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Kent Rutter — Haynes and Boone, LLP, Respondent