Union Pacific R. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking

45 Citing cases

  1. Wellman Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co.

    642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

    Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir.2002). Wellman has therefore forfeited its right to argue the significance of these absorption ratios on appeal.

  2. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.

    642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Third Circuit law holds that in challenging a summary judgment order on appeal, a party cannot "advance new theories or raise new issues in order to secure a reversal of the lower court's determination." Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Tramp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2002). Wellman has therefore forfeited its right to argue the significance of these absorption ratios on appeal.

  3. Webb v. City of Phila.

    562 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 223 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Finding a city would suffer "undue hardship" under Title VII if forced to permit police officers to wear religious clothing or ornamentation with their uniforms

    Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). II.

  4. In re Stone Webster Inc.

    Nos. 05-2717 07-1772 (3d Cir. Dec. 30, 2008)

    As SAMBA did not present this equitable estoppel argument to the District Court, it is waived. See Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2002). The failure to present this argument is easily understood, as equitable estoppel would need to involve misleading conduct by Shaw and detrimental reliance by SAMBA, not simply a failure timely to contest the cure claim.

  5. Mills v. Philadelphia Gas Works

    264 F. App'x 239 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 125-26 (3d Cir. 2002). Mills, however, has attempted to supplement the record by attaching several new documents to his informal brief.

  6. Dominion Resource Services, Inc. v. 5K Logistics, Inc.

    Action No. 3:09-CV-315 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2009)

    However, when a shipper assumes responsibility for loading goods, he also assumes responsibility for any losses that result, unless the defects in his loading are apparent to the carrier. See Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Greentree Transportation Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 127 (3d Cir. 2002) (finding that this is settled application of state and federal law); see also, David E. Kennedy v. O'Brien, 115 Pa.Super. Ct. 469, 470 (Pa. 1934) (Pennsylvania follows common law rule). Similarly, a carrier is not liable for damages to property which arise out of the shipper's improper packing, unless the inadequacy is apparent to the carrier.

  7. Ace American Insurance Company v. Wachovia Ins. Agency

    Civil Action No.: 08-4369 (JLL) (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2008)   Cited 6 times

    ACE overreads the cases it relies upon. In Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Greentree TransportationTrucking Co., the Court of Appeals found that the appellant was not entitled to argue any issues from its motion for reconsideration on appeal because it failed to amend its notice of appeal. 293 F.3d 120, 126, n. 8 (3d Cir. 2002). Far from allowing that facts before the district court on reconsideration can be foreclosed by swiftly filing a notice of appeal, Greentree Transportation Trucking Co. stands for the proposition that a party is limited on its appeal to the issues it has raised.

  8. KPX, L.L.C. v. Transgroup Worldwide Logistics, Inc.

    CV 04-352 TUC DCB (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    It is common for the carrier to prepare the bill of lading and present it to the shipper. Union Pacific R.R. v. Greentree Transportation Trucking, 293 F.3d 120, 124 (3rd Cir. 2002); see also: 49 U.S.C. ยง 14706(1) ("carrier . . . shall issue a receipt or bill of lading for property it receives for transportation. . . .") Under such circumstances, the bill of lading is a contract of adhesion and construed against the carrier. All Pacific Trading Inc., v. Vessel M/V Hanjin Yosu, 7 F.3d 1427, 1341 (9th Cir. 1993).

  9. Mierzwa v. Dudek

    No. 18-2007 (3d Cir. Nov. 29, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    See id.; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii)). Appellant did neither; thus, we cannot review it.

  10. McMillian v. Wetzel

    No. 18-1771 (3d Cir. Nov. 4, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that the district court erred in determining that the inmate-plaintiff's affidavits, which contained hearsay, could not be considered to oppose a motion for summary judgment

    Union Pac. R. Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 125-26 (3d Cir. 2002). At that time, Kulp was a party in the case.