Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Peters

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that statements in an opinion that are not involved in or essential to determination of the issues before the court are dicta
• concluding that a railroad was entitled to summary judgment on a FELA claim where there was “no evidence showing that the railroad should have reasonably foreseen that [the plaintiff employee] might be the victim of a random criminal assault at a convenience store owned by a third party”
• “statements in an opinion concerning a rule of law not necessarily involved in or essential to determination of the case before the court are nonbinding dicta”
• “[A]n employer is not liable [under FELA] if it has no reasonable way of knowing that a potential hazard exists.”
• “Although the meaning of reasonable foreseeability under FELA ‘remains somewhat elusive and abstract,’ it equates with ‘notice, either actual or constructive.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).