Stoeger v. Burlington Northern Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• identifying negligence and causation as material facts to be determined by the factfinder
• “[I]t is the role of a jury — not a judge acting pretrial — to determine where the truth lies.”
• an equally divided court found it unnecessary to decide whether inconsistent statement by a party created a material question of fact
• trial court should not have granted summary judgment for the defendant on a common-law negligence claim; the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact whether the defendant \knew or should have known\ that a railroad switch was defective
• trial court should not have granted summary judgment for the defendant on a common-law negligence claim; the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact whether the defendant “knew or should have known” that a railroad switch was defective
• concerning effect of contradiction between statements from same person

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).