HOME STORY OF OUR FIRM SEARCH
ASBESTOS DRUGS POLLUTANTS ACCIDENTS MALPRACTICE

Conclusion

18 We conclude that the trial court properly denied Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment on the merits of Christiansen's claim, but erred in granting Union Pacific's motion on the limitations period. We reverse and remand to permit the trial court to determine whether Christiansen's claim is barred by the limitations period and, if not, for a trial on the merits of his claim.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

-----

19 WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge

Courtesy of Christiansen v. Union Pacific
Mesothelioma Mesothelioma Home Page
head Mesothelioma: An Overview
kleio The Clock Is Ticking
asbestos Our Toughest Cases
head Diagnosis
treatment Symptoms, Stages, Treatment
kleio Latest News
New York Numbers
Asbestos


IN THIS SECTION
Parties in the Case
Review of the Facts in the Case
Plantiff's Asbestos Exposure
Union Pacific's Motion Denied
Issues and Standard of Review
Analysis
Union Pacific's Assertions
The Court's Considerations
FELA Defendants
Union Pacific's Contentions
Summary Judgment on the Limitations Period
Plaintiff Learns of his Injury
The Trial Court's Decision
The Plaintiff's Argument
Did the Plaintiff Diligently Pursue his Claim?
The Court's Opinion
The Court's Conclusons


RETURN BACK TO
Mesothelioma
Asbestos
Asbestos Help
News & Warnings

For legal help anywhere in the U.S. call:

1 - 800 - 476 - 6070

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

see also:

Analysis Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Analysis
Read more about important asbestos cases here

Parties in the Case Important Asbestos litigation decision
The asbestos case of Christiansen v. Union Pacific

Christiansen v. Union Pacific Christiansen v. Union Pacific: Important Asbestos litigation decision
Read about the asbestos case of Christiansen v. Union Pacific