Robert C. Aparicio v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs affidavit that recanted his earlier deposition testimony was properly struck and therefore could not serve to create a genuine issue of material fact
• holding a plaintiff must “present more than a scintilla of evidence in order to create a jury question on the issue of employer liability, but not much more.”
• describing how “a jury trial is considered to be a ‘goodly portion of the relief which Congress has afforded railroad workers” (citation omitted)
• affirming the conclusion of the district court that a material factual issue existed as to whether the hand discomfort that first manifested itself in 1992 was “separate from his 1987 injury”
• describing how “a jury trial is considered to be a ‘goodly portion of the relief’ which Congress has afforded railroad workers” (citation omitted)
• noting \the purpose of the discovery rule articulated in Urie requiring Federal Employers' Liability Act plaintiffs to use reasonable diligence to discover the cause of an injury once the injury manifests itself\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).