Perini-North River Associates, a Corporation v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and Penn Central Transportation Company

How courts have described this case

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

• applying the notice requirement to claim against carrier over damaged merchandise but finding estoppel appropriate
• applying the notice requirement to claim against carrier over damaged merchandise but finding estoppel appropriate
• estoppel inquiries should focus on what the carrier did, rather than its actual knowledge that a claim was being filed
• \Hopper . . . was considered a maverick decision . . . . Most courts criticized Hopper . . . and demoted it to the ranks of cases distinguishable on their facts.\
• “Local rules of estoppel may not be applied so as to thwart the purposes of federal statutes. The converse is also true: the doctrine should be used when it enhances the statutory purpose.”
• carrier estopped from invoking nine-month period where it told shipper that formal filing was unnecessary, and it deviated from its normal practice of sending such forms to the shipper when the loss occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).