Christopher William Bowman (St. Paul, Minnesota)
Christopher William Bowman (St. Paul, Minnesota)

Christopher William Bowman

  • Peer Reviews
    no reviews
  • Client Reviews
    n/a no reviews

Licensed for 10 years

Serving St. Paul, MN (view address)

Christopher William Bowman

Serving St. Paul, MN (view address)

About Christopher William Bowman

Chris is an associate with the firm, joining YJB in March 2013 after spending three-and-a-half years clerking at the Minnesota Court of Appeals for Judges Michelle Larkin, Edward Toussaint, and Lawrence Stauber. Outside of the office, Chris enjoys following the Minnesota Wild and Gopher hockey teams and spending time with his wife and daughters.

Winner, Merit Scholarship (75% of Tuition); Winner, Stephen & Lois Bergenson Endowed Scholarship; Editor, Journal of Law & Practice; National Trial Advocacy Competition; CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Torts I and Business: Agency, Partnerships, and LLC's

Winner, Faculty Scholarship Award; Dean's List; Judicial Board; Student Senate
Yaeger & Jungbauer Barristers, PLC

Areas of Law

  • Federal Employers' Liability Act - FELA
  • Federal Safety Appliance Act - FSAA
  • Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA)
  • Locomotive Inspection Act - LIA
  • Appellate Practice

Attorney Reviews


This attorney does not have any client reviews yet.

Legal Community Activity & Contributions




Admission Details

Admitted in 2013, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
2013, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
2013, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
2013, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
2014, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
2009, Minnesota

Law School Attended
Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Class of 2009
J.D., cum laude
Winner, Merit Scholarship (75% of Tuition); Winner, Stephen & Lois Bergenson Endowed Scholarship; Editor, Journal of Law & Practice; National Trial Advocacy Competition; CALI Excellence for the Future Award in Torts I and Business: Agency, Partnerships, and LLC’s

University Attended

Lawrence University of Wisconsin
Class of 2006
B.A., English & Political Science
Winner, Faculty Scholarship Award; Dean’s List; Judicial Board; Vice President and Finance Chairman, Student Senate; Vice President for Programming, Phi Kappa Tau Fraternity

Associations & Memberships
Ramsey County Bar Association
Minnesota State Bar Association (Member, Appellate Practice Sections).
Representative Cases
Rookaird v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 2:14-CV-176-RSL (W.D.Wash.): A BNSF conductor was terminated after testing the brakes on a 42-car consist, including 40 placarded HazMat cars containing propane and butane residue, after the railroad claimed that the conductor had not worked efficiently. Chris secured summary judgment in favor of the conductor on the fact that the brake test was a contributing factor in the termination and was part of the trial team that convinced a nine-person jury that performing the test over the questioning of his supervisors constituted a good faith act done to refuse to violate Federal law, rule, or regulation related to railroad safety and was therefore protected activity under the Federal Rail Safety Act. The jury returned a verdict totaling more than $1.6 Million, including $200,000 in punitive damages, representing the largest jury verdict to date under the revised FRSA whistleblower protections.

Bjornson v. Soo Line R.R. Co., et al., No. 0:14-CV-4596-JRT-SER (D.Minn. June 15, 2015): Magistrate Judge Steven Rau recommended striking two affirmative defenses pleaded by the railroad. The first defense, based on the language of 49 U.S.C. 20109(f), suggested that a railroad employee who challenges discipline through his or her union under a Collective Bargaining Agreement is precluded from filing a lawsuit that the railroad's actions violate Federal statute. The Court concluded that the defense was “legally insufficient” as being foreclosed by the plain language of the statute. The second defense, based on a Department of Transportation regulation that directs plaintiffs to provide the Department of Labor 15-days' notice in advance of filing a Federal claim, suggested that failure to do so deprived the Court of jurisdiction. The Court rejected the railroad's argument, finding that Article III Courts owe “no deference to the Department of Labor's interpretation” of the statute.

Grimes v. BNSF Railway Co., 746 F.3d 184 (5th Circuit, 2014): Fifth Circuit vacated district court's dismissal of FRSA case, finding that district court's application of collateral-estoppel doctrine was erroneous because the investigatory hearing was conducted by the railroad and the Public Law Board's review was limited to the closed record prepared by the railroad, the procedures of the PLB were not adequate to allow for the doctrine to apply in FRSA cases.

Kennedy v. Soo Line Railroad Co., d/b/a Canadian Pacific (Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota

27-CV-12-3265): District court denied railroad's motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or conditional remittitur after finding that a radio communication that is incomplete under GCOR 2.6 violates 29 C.F.R. § 220.45, thereby negating any contributory negligence on the part of the railroad employee.

Attorney FAQs

What year was this attorney first admitted to the bar?
Christopher William Bowman was admitted in 2009 to the state of Minnesota.
Is this attorney admitted to practice in any U.S. Federal Courts?
Christopher William Bowman is admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eigth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
How many attorneys are in this law firm?
Yaeger & Jungbauer Barristers, PLC has 14 attorneys at this location.
What law school did this attorney attend?
Christopher William Bowman attended Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
What year was this attorney's law firm established?
Yaeger & Jungbauer Barristers, PLC was established in 1930.


Email Lawyer (All fields are required)

Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters
reCAPTCHA is required.

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.


Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am:
First Name:
Last Name:
Phone Number: