Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4050.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 4050.,4050. |
| Citation | 182 F.2d 765 |
| Parties | RILEY v. UNION PAC. R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Donald T. Barbeau, Minneapolis, Minn. (Vincent Mulvaney, Cheyenne, Wyo., and William H. DeParq, Minneapolis, Minn., were on the brief), for appellant.
Robert B. Hamer, Omaha, Neb. (John U. Loomis and Edward T. Lazear, Cheyenne, Wyo., were on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
On January 25, 1949, Riley brought this action against the Union Pacific Railroad Company1 to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an accident which occurred on July 2, 1944, at Green River, Wyoming, which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the Railroad Company while she was a passenger on one of its trains.
The trial court dismissed the action D.C., 88 F.Supp. 391, on the ground that it was barred by § 3-506, Wyoming Compiled Statutes Annotated, 1945, under which an action for personal injuries must be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues.
On June 22, 1948, Riley commenced an action against the Railroad Company upon the same cause of action in the Superior Court of Cook County, Illinois. That action was duly removed on the ground of diversity of citizenship to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The Railroad Company filed a motion to dismiss that action upon the ground that it was barred by the Illinois statute of limitations, Chapter 83 § 15, Ill.Rev.St.1947, which provides that an action for personal injuries must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.
After the filing of such motion to dismiss, Riley filed a motion to transfer the cause to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1406(a). The Illinois Federal District Court denied the latter motion and dismissed the action on the ground that it was barred by the Illinois statute of limitations. On appeal that judgment was affirmed. See Riley v. Union Pacific R. Co., 7 Cir., 177 F.2d 673. Riley sought review of the judgment of affirmance by petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court denied her petition on January 9, 1950. 338 U.S. 911, 70 S.Ct. 350.
Section 3-521, Wyoming Compiled Statutes Annotated, 1945, in part provides: "If in an action commenced in due time, a judgment for the plaintiff be reversed, or if the plaintiff fail otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the commencement of such action has at the date of such reversal or failure expired, the plaintiff * * * may commence a new action within one year after such date, * * *."
The question presented is whether the Illinois action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duke v. Housen
...Nebraska v. Maika, 1907, 16 Wyo. 141, 92 P. 619; and Riley v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., U.S.D.C.Wyo.1950, 88 F.Supp. 391, aff'd. 10th Cir. 1950, 182 F.2d 765 to support a 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 66, p. 645 statement as " * * * the statutes of limitation of the place where t......
-
Bockweg v. Anderson, 52PA90
...was inapposite at the time or has been overruled legislatively or judicially. The earliest case cited in High is Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co., 182 F.2d 765 (10th Cir.1950). Riley involved a personal injury suit commenced in Illinois state court, removed by defendant to federal court, and dism......
-
Muzingo v. Vaught
...961, 963-964 (6th Cir.1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920, 92 S.Ct. 1773, 32 L.Ed.2d 119 (1972) (Ohio law); Riley v. Union Pacific Railroad, 182 F.2d 765, 767[1-2] (10th Cir.1950) (Wyoming law); C & L Rural Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Kincade, 175 F.Supp. 223, 227[5-6] (N.D.Miss.1959), aff'......
-
Allen v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
...Corp., 452 F.2d 961 (6th Cir. 1971) (Ohio law), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 920, 92 S.Ct. 1773, 32 L.Ed.2d 119 (1972); Riley v. Union Pac. R.R., 182 F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1950) (Wyoming law); Sigler v. Youngblood Truck Lines, Inc., 149 F.Supp. 61 (E.D.Tenn.1957) (Tennessee law); Sorensen v. The Ov......