(Tampa attorney) Tobin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
More info…
(U.S. 1st Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an appeal from a remitted jury award to plaintiff based on the failure of defendant-employer to accommodate his disability as required by federal and state law, the judgment below is affirmed over: 1) defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support either liability or the remaining damages award; 2) its claim that the statute of limitations had run on the claims; and 3) plaintiff’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on punitive damages and in denying attorney’s fees pending final judgment.
Bernstein v. Feiner
(N.Y., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) Appeal is dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In the context of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 civil rights suits, a prosecutor’s absolute immunity extends to claims that the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material due to failure to: 1) properly train prosecutors; 2) properly supervise prosecutors; or 3) establish an information system containing potential impeachment material about informants.
Deleon v. Verizon Wireless
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law) In a claim brought by plaintiff on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees against defendant employer-Verizon Wireless alleging various Labor Code violations, demurrer sustained in favor of defendant ruling that plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend to state claims that accrued after the date of the earlier action.
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim.
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 4, 2009 8:35 pm | 
Comments (0)
Subscribe