We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-9 of 9

Court of Appeals holds oral argument in railroad fuel surcharge litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2013

On May 3, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held its scheduled oral argument on the railroads' petition for leave

Procedural schedule in railroad fuel surcharge litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 18 2013

The railroad fuel surcharge antitrust class action litigation continues to make forward progress. Briefing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Revised procedural schedules in fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2012

In a November 26, 2012 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted an unopposed motion to modify the procedural schedule in the railroads’ request for permission to appeal the decision by the District Court to certify the plaintiff class in the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

Procedural schedule extended in fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 7 2012

In a November 6, 2012 decision, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the railroad defendants’ request to modify the procedural schedule in the fuel surcharge antitrust class action litigation

District court denies stay in railroad fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 21 2012

In a decision issued September 20, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia largely denied the railroad defendants' request for a stay of the fuel surcharge antitrust class action litigation

Fuel surcharge appeal briefing scheduled

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 7 2012

As we reported on July 9, 2012, the four major Class I railroads - BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company - sought permission to appeal the United States District Court for the District of Columbia's June 21 order certifying a class action against the railroads for recovery of damages suffered by shippers as a result of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ?

Court releases public opinion, sets scheduling conference in fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 17 2012

On July 13, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the 145-page public version of its class certification opinion (Opinion) in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation

Railroads seek to appeal fuel surcharge decision

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2012

The four major Class I railroads - BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company - have filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seeking permission to appeal the railroad fuel surcharge antitrust class certification decision issued on June 21, 2012 by the U.S. District Court

Transportation update: court certifies class in rail freight fuel surcharge antitrust litigation

  • Thompson Hine LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2012

On June 21, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order (Order) certifying a class action against the four major Class I railroads - BNSF Railway Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, CSX Transportation, Inc. and Norfolk Southern Railway Company - for recovery of damages suffered by shippers as a result of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C Â 1