§Why CasetextPricing

BURNETT v. OCEAN PROPERTIES LTD et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Remittitur

9 Cited authorities

  1. Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc.

    69 F.3d 1344 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 221 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Landgraf does not prohibit the jury from hearing about pre-Act conduct which provides context and background

  2. Hernández-Miranda v. Empresas Díaz Massó, Inc.

    651 F.3d 167 (1st Cir. 2011)   Cited 45 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that current calendar year for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 a(b) meant the year of the discrimination

  3. Rodowicz v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    279 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2002)   Cited 38 times
    Remanding with instructions to enter judgment for defendant employer where evidence showed employer's statements to plaintiff were not false when made

  4. Jakobsen v. Massachusetts Port Authority

    520 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1975)   Cited 89 times
    Holding that a state damage cap was an affirmative defense under Rule 8

  5. Oliver v. Cole Gift Ctrs., Inc.

    85 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D. Conn. 2000)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that plaintiff cites no case law holding that statutory limitations must be pled as an affirmative defense

  6. Ortega-Guerin v. City of Phoenix

    No. CV 04-0289-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Aug. 14, 2006)   Cited 2 times

    No. CV 04-0289-PHX-MHM. August 14, 2006 ORDER MARY MURGUIA, District Judge This case was tried to a jury who returned verdicts favorable to Plaintiff on her claim based on sexual harassment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., against Defendant City of Phoenix, and on Plaintiff's claims based on civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Frank Favela and Frank Peralta. Judgment has been entered. (Doc. 80). Defendant City of Phoenix has filed a motion to conform the Judgment

  7. Paris v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-0208-L (N.D. Tex. Jul. 30, 2001)

    Civil Action No. 3:97-CV-0208-L July 30, 2001 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SAM LINDSAY, District Judge On June 26, 2001, the court held an evidentiary hearing on issues relating to backpay, reinstatement, damages, front pay and entry of final judgment. Pursuant to a previous order of the court, the parties submitted briefs on these issues. The court now sets forth its ruling on these matters. I. Background This case was tried before the court and a jury from March 19-26, 2001. Plaintiff Sharon Paris

  8. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,604 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  9. Section 1981a - Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment

    42 U.S.C. § 1981a   Cited 4,159 times   55 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "additional remedies under Federal law are needed to deter unlawful harassment and intentional discrimination in the workplace"