Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange

866 F.2d 111

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-01-26
Topic
bankruptcy

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge: This court sitting en banc previously affirmed the judgment of the district court as to liability and damages. Aldridge v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 814 F.2d 157 (4th Cir.1987) (en banc) (Phillips, J., concurring; Hall and Ervin, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part; Russell, Widener and Chapman, dissenting), cert. granted and judgment vacated sub nom. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. v. Aldridge, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2812, 100 L.Ed.2d 913 (1988).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed George O. Aldridge and Daisy M. Aldridge v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, a Body Corporate v. Keith D. Brelsford and Erie Insurance Exchange. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
9 opinions
ALDRIDGE v. BALTIMORE AND OHIO R. CO.,866 F.2d 111(4th Cir. 1989)
GEORGE O. ALDRIDGE AND DAISY M. ALDRIDGE, APPELLEES, v. BALTIMORE AND OHIO
RAILROAD COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, APPELLANT, v. KEITH D. BRELSFORD AND
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, DEFENDANTS.
No. 84-1185.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
January 26, 1989.
George F. Pappas (H. Russell Smouse, Melnicove, Kaufman, Weiner Smouse, P.A., Baltimore, Md., C. Keith Meiser, Jacksonville, Fla., on brief), for appellant.

Richard R. Beauchemin (Norris W. Tingle, Geoffrey J.C. Boyd, Arnold, Beauchemin Tingle, P.A., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court of the District of Maryland.
Before RUSSELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, SPROUSE, ERVIN, CHAPMAN, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.
SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:
[1] This court sittingen bancpreviously affirmed the judgment of the district court as to liability and damages.Aldridge v.Baltimore Ohio R.R.,814 F.2d 157(4th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (Phillips, J., concurring; Hall and Ervin, JJ., concurring in part and dissenting in part; Russell, Widener and Chapman, dissenting),cert. granted and judgment vacated sub nom.Chesapeake Ohio R.R. v. Aldridge,___ U.S. ___,108 S.Ct. 2812,100 L.Ed.2d 913(1988). The United States Supreme Court has now remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of its decision inMonessen Southwest Ry. v. Morgan,___ U.S. ___,108 S.Ct. 1837,100 L.Ed.2d 349(1988). In our view,Monessendemonstrates that we erred in affirming the district court's judgment that Aldridge's damages need not have been adjusted to present value. Once again, we find no reason to disturb the jury's findings and the district court's rulings on liability issues, but reverse that portion of the judgment relating to damages and remand it to the district court for a retrial on that issue in accordance with the views of the Supreme Court expressed inMonessen.
[2] CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
[3] I dissent from the decision to remand for a retrial only on the issue of damages. Although the Supreme Court did not discuss liability inMonessen Southwest Ry. v. Morgan,the issues of liability and damages are so intertwined inAldridgethat justice requires that both issues be remanded and that there be a new trialde novo.Page 112

[4] I am authorized to state that Circuit Judge WIDENER joins in this dissent.Page 660