Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-879 | 3d Cir. |
Nov 9, 2011 Tr.Aud. |
Feb 29, 2012 | 6-3 | Thomas | OT 2011 |
Holding: Petitioners’ state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims fall within the field of locomotive equipment regulation pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, as that field was defined in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on February 29, 2012. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: The Court goes back to school
- Argument recap: Contending with old precedent
- Argument preview: Preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for Petitioners
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
- Brief for the Academy of Rail Labor Attorneys
- Brief for the American Association for Justice
- Brief for the National Association of Retired and Veteran Railway Employees
- Brief for Public Justice, P.C.
- Brief for Public Law Scholars
- Brief for the United States
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
- Brief for Thyssenkrupp Budd Company
- Brief for the National Association of Manufacturers
- Brief for General Electric Corporation
- Brief for John Crane Inc.
- Brief for Chamber of Commerce
- Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation
- Brief for DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar
- Brief for Griffin Wheel Company
- Brief for the Association of American Railroads
Certiorari-stage Documents
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition for Railroad Friction Products Corp. (unavailable)
- Response to petition for VIAD
- Supplemental brief for respondent VIAD
- Supplemental brief for respondent Railroad Friction Products Corp.
The supplemental briefs in this case make reference to the Solicitor General’s brief in Crane v. Atwell, which is available here.
Submit Event
