40 search results for query *

Summary: 425 F. Supp. George F. Galland, Robert W. Ginnane, and Galland, Kharasch, Calkins & Brown, Washington, D.C., for Norwich & Worcester R. Co. OPINION WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES SET FOR BRIEFING AND ARGUMENT AS SUBJECTS (1) AND (2) OF SCHEDULE ATTACHED TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF JUNE 16, 1976 FRIENDLY, Presiding Judge: In our Memorandum and Order of June 16, 1976 (hereafter "June 16 Memorandum"), a copy of which is appended to this opinion as an addendum, issued after we had received statements of more.

Summary: 666 F. Supp. In its first two causes of action, RLEA claims that by refusing to reaffirm its commitment to pay $207.5 million and provide indemnification, Conrail has breached its agreement with RLEA (Count I) and violated the Act (Count II). In particular, Article I of Part III of the Definitive Agreement provides in section 1 that "Conrail shall pay $207.5 million to or for the benefit of certain present and former Agreement Employees, of which no less than $200 million shall be paid to such more.

Summary: 423 F. Supp. 941 (1976) CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS et al., Defendants. Special Court, Regional Rail Reorganization Act. WISDOM, Judge: This action raises important questions relating to the Special Court's exclusive jurisdiction, construction of the Rail Act,[1] and the integrity of the Final System Plan (FSP)[2]. ConRail moved in this Court for a *944 declaratory judgment and for injunctive relief against enforcement of a permanent injunction issued August more.

Summary: 421 F. Supp. WISDOM, Judge: This proceeding before this Special Court relates to the proposed transfer of certain "employee pension benefit plans" to Consolidated Rail Corporation (ConRail) from the Penn Central Trustees, the Erie Lackawanna Trustees, the Lehigh and Hudson Valley Trustees, and the Lehigh Valley Trustee. Newly added § 303(b)(6) of the Act provides that the Special Court shall assure that the operation and administration of the employee pension benefit plans described in section more.

Summary: 535 F. Supp. 697 (1982) UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Plaintiff, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant, and CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, et al., Defendants. Thomas CANNON, Robert Stillwell, Donald R. Brewer, and David L. Peterson, On Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly Situated "Firemen" and "Train Service Employees" Affected by the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981, Plaintiffs, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant. Cornelius D. more.

Summary: 554 F. Supp. MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: This case is before the Court on the petition of the United Transportation Union (UTU) for review of an arbitrator's award made on October 12, 1982 by Neutral Referee Fred Blackwell pursuant to Section 508 of the Rail Passenger Service Act (RPSA) as amended by the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 (NRSA), Pub.L. Section 508 of RPSA provides (in pertinent part): (a) Not later than May 1, 1982, Conrail, commuter authorities that intend to operate commuter more.

Summary: 883 F. Supp. William F. Holsten II, Paola F. Tripodi, Holsten & White, Media, PA, for defendant County of Delaware. [3] The plaintiff, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), and the defendants, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), ask the Court to determine whether their CERCLA liability is limited by the Rail Act and its related statutes, the Final System Plan (FSP), and this Court's conveyance orders and documents more.

Summary: 564 F. Supp. 385 (1983) PRAIRIE CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY, and The Penn Central Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant. Section 201(a) of the Rail Act created the United States Railway Association (USRA), a government corporation responsible for preparing a Final System Plan (FSP) to restructure certain railroads in reorganization, including the Penn Central, into a financially self-sustaining rail service system. The plaintiffs contend that Prairie Central, more.

Summary: 638 F. Supp. 350 (1986) CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. METRO-NORTH COMMUTER RAILROAD COMPANY, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Connecticut Department of Transportation, Defendants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Counterclaim Defendant. Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael F. Hertz, Alan E. Kleinburd, Attys., Civ. Section 1136 relieved the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) of its obligation to operate more.

Summary: 518 F. Supp. 985 (1974), 45 U.S.C. §§ 701-794 (1976 & Supp. [1] A protected employee who is "deprived of employment or adversely affected with respect to ... compensation" as a result of the restructuring of the bankrupt railroads under the Act is entitled to receive from Conrail certain benefits, including "monthly displacement allowances" (MDAs) under § 505(b) of the Act. The RRR Act originally used a single formula to compute the MDAs of all protected employees. The Staggers Act amends § 505( more.

Summary: 384 F. Supp. In the Matter of The UNITED NEW JERSEY RAILROAD AND CANAL CO. and Other Secondary Debtors of Penn Central Transportation Company, Debtor. FRIENDLY, Presiding Judge: We have here a number of appeals from orders of district courts under the second sentence of ง 207(b) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (generally hereafter the Act), 87 Stat. [1] The district *901 courts made the orders in the reorganization proceedings under ง 77 of the Bankruptcy Act which were before more.

Summary: 439 F. Supp. George F. Galland, Robert W. Ginnane, and Galland, Kharasch, Calkins & Brown, Washington, D. C., for Norwich & Worcester, R. Co. FRIENDLY, Presiding Judge: I. Introduction Section 303(c)(1)(A) and (2) of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 as amended (the Rail Act) directs this court to determine whether the transfers and conveyances *1354 which took place on April 1, 1976, were for a consideration more or less than the constitutional minimum[1] "taking into consideration more.

Summary: 594 F. Supp. This dispute arises from Section 1144(a)(1) of the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 ("NRSA"), 45 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., which repeals Title V of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 ("RRR Act"), as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States, 575 F. Supp.

Summary: 582 F. Supp. 1552 (1984) NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al., Defendants, and The Co-Operative Legislative Committee, Railroad Brotherhoods and Railroad Unions, State of Ohio, Intervenor. The principle issue in this case is whether § 4999.20 of the Ohio Revised Code ("Section 4999.20") is preempted by § 711 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 ("3R Act"), as amended by the Northeast Rail Service Act of 1981 ("NRSA"), 45 more.

Summary: 534 F. Supp. [1] Section 1136 of that Act provided that: Notwithstanding any other provision of law or contract, Conrail shall be relieved of any legal obligation to operate commuter service on January 1, 1983. At issue here is whether Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is subject to the obligations imposed by § 1145 of NRSA with respect to employees of Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) on certain commuter lines in the Philadelphia, Pa., area of which it had more.

Summary: 558 F. Supp. Specifically, Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) requests an order declaring that the Special Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for relief asserted in this action and enjoining defendants, County of Monroe and its Board of Commissioners (County) from taking any further action in pursuit of injunctive relief in a suit filed by them in the Middle District of Pennsylvania entitled County of Monroe, et al. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, CV. This more.

Summary: 575 F. Supp. These included that: (4) the provisions for protection of employees of bankrupt railroads contained in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 have resulted in the payment of *1556 benefits far in excess of levels anticipated at the time of enactment, have imposed an excessive fiscal burden on the Federal taxpayer, and are now an obstacle to the establishment of improved rail service and continued rail employment in the Northeast region of the United States; and (5) since more.

Summary: 459 F. Supp. FRIENDLY, Presiding Judge: In this action Consolidated Rail Corporation (ConRail) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to a controversy which has arisen between it and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company (P&LE) with respect to a trackage rights agreement relating to the Ashtabula Harbor Branch, formerly owned by the Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central), extending northward from Ashtabula, Ohio, to the coal and iron ore docks at the Lake Erie more.

Summary: 448 F. Supp. 279 (1978) STRATFORD LAND AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, INC. (formerly known as Rykar Industrial Corporation) and Stratford Industrial Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Robert W. BLANCHETTE, Richard C. Bond, and John H. McArthur, Trustees of Penn Central Transportation Company and Consolidated Rail Corporation, Defendants. Stratford sought reimbursement, from ConRail or, alternatively, from the Trustees, of so much of its costs of constructing tracks from the PC line into an industrial park more.

Summary: 547 F. Supp. The three previous cases are Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA I), 534 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (1982), Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA II), 534 F. Supp. 852 (March 11, 1982), and International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA III), 539 F. Supp. The relief prayed for is a declaration that SEPTA or Commuter more.