21 Cited authorities

Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 962 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding the jury could infer deliberate indifference to the risk of inmate sexual assault because the jail's issuance of a one-page memorandum was a "token response" to a prior instance of lesser sexual misconduct
Gallick v. Baltimore Ohio R. Co.
372 U.S. 108 (1963) Cited 688 times
Holding that "it is the duty of the courts to attempt to harmonize" jury verdicts
A. G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines
369 U.S. 355 (1962) Cited 513 times
Holding that while appellate courts should not redetermine facts found by a jury, it is their duty to view a jury's findings in a consistent manner
Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc.
339 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 395 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII's damages cap is “a legislative judgment similar to the imposition of a civil fine”
Winarto v. Toshiba Am. Electronics Components
274 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 283 times
Holding that "[a]n unwarranted reduction in performance review scores can constitute evidence of pretext in retaliation cases" under Title VII
Rogers v. McDorman
521 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 191 times
Holding that "inpari delicto is an affirmative defense"
White v. Ford Motor Co.
312 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 182 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior accident when the testimony was "somewhat ambiguous" as to whether the prior accident was caused by a manufacturing defect or the design defect at issue in the case
Floyd v. Laws
929 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 196 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court must dismiss a jury's "special findings issued in violation of the [district] court's express instructions" as "surplusage, as a matter of law"
Fabri v. United Technologies Intern., Inc.
387 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 128 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally high, but nonetheless ordering “a new trial on punitive damages unless plaintiffs agree to a reduction, in an amount to be determined by the district court, in their punitive damages”
El-Hakem v. BJY Inc.
415 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 113 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that calling the plaintiff "Manny" every day for two months "and in emails at least twice a month thereafter" for approximately one year total despite the plaintiff's objections and requests to be called by his actual name, was sufficiently pervasive conduct to create a hostile work environment
Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law
42 U.S.C. § 1981 Cited 37,778 times 234 Legal Analyses
Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race
Rule 49 - Special Verdict; General Verdict and Questions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 49 Cited 1,241 times 4 Legal Analyses
Noting that "a court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each of fact"

Jose Flores et al v. City of Westminster et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding the jury could infer deliberate indifference to the risk of inmate sexual assault because the jail's issuance of a one-page memorandum was a "token response" to a prior instance of lesser sexual misconduct

Holding that "it is the duty of the courts to attempt to harmonize" jury verdicts

Holding that while appellate courts should not redetermine facts found by a jury, it is their duty to view a jury's findings in a consistent manner

Holding that Title VII's damages cap is “a legislative judgment similar to the imposition of a civil fine”

Holding that "[a]n unwarranted reduction in performance review scores can constitute evidence of pretext in retaliation cases" under Title VII

Holding that "inpari delicto is an affirmative defense"

Holding that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior accident when the testimony was "somewhat ambiguous" as to whether the prior accident was caused by a manufacturing defect or the design defect at issue in the case

Holding that the district court must dismiss a jury's "special findings issued in violation of the [district] court's express instructions" as "surplusage, as a matter of law"

Holding that the punitive damages award was unconstitutionally high, but nonetheless ordering “a new trial on punitive damages unless plaintiffs agree to a reduction, in an amount to be determined by the district court, in their punitive damages”

Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race

Noting that "a court may require a jury to return only a special verdict in the form of a special written finding on each of fact"