Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-879 | 3d Cir. | Nov 9, 2011 | 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 (Shon Hopwood, March 1, 2012)
- Argument recap: Contending with old precedent (Shon Hopwood, November 14, 2011)
- Argument preview: Preemption under the Locomotive Inspection Act (Shon Hopwood, November 8, 2011)
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.