31 Cited authorities

Puckett v. United States
556 U.S. 129 (2009) Cited 4,502 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc.
290 F.3d 639 (4th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,181 times
Holding plaintiff showed pretext where an employer offered more reasons at trial than in discovery
Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Intern. Broth
34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1994) Cited 857 times
Holding that the "community" was the Western District of New York
Spell v. McDaniel
824 F.2d 1380 (4th Cir. 1987) Cited 1,021 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the prevailing market rate can be established with reference to “information concerning recent fee awards by courts in comparable cases”
Tennant v. Peoria P.U. Ry. Co.
321 U.S. 29 (1944) Cited 805 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Tennant v. Peoria P. U. R. Co., 321 U.S. 29, one of the leading cases, the Court granted certiorari "because of important problems as to petitioner's right to a jury determination of the issue of causation."
Poor v. Hill
138 N.C. App. 19 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000) Cited 336 times
Holding that in the consumer protection context, should the same course of conduct give rise to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and plaintiffs claims under a consumer protection statute, plaintiffs may recover damages either for the breach of contract, or for violation of the statute, butt not for both
Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co.
79 N.C. App. 483 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 350 times
Holding that the question of ratification of employee's alleged harassment should be submitted to a jury when the defendant continued to employ the offending employee, declined to intervene to prevent further offensive behavior towards the plaintiff, and ultimately terminated the plaintiff from employment
Davis by Davis v. Jellico Community Hosp. Inc.
912 F.2d 129 (6th Cir. 1990) Cited 216 times
Recognizing that, where courts have tended to remand in light of new factual developments, it has been in the context of injunctive relief scenarios or other prospective relief, "not attempts to revise jury verdicts"
Duke v. Uniroyal Inc.
928 F.2d 1413 (4th Cir. 1991) Cited 201 times
Holding that an award of compensation for future lost earnings, or "front pay," is an equitable matter for the court, not the jury
Woods v. Insurance Co.
295 N.C. 500 (N.C. 1978) Cited 212 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that "every word and every provision [of an insurance policy] is to be given effect"

Smith v. Waverly Partners, LLC et al

31 Cited authorities

Holding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"

Holding plaintiff showed pretext where an employer offered more reasons at trial than in discovery

Holding that the "community" was the Western District of New York

Holding that the prevailing market rate can be established with reference to “information concerning recent fee awards by courts in comparable cases”

In Tennant v. Peoria P. U. R. Co., 321 U.S. 29, one of the leading cases, the Court granted certiorari "because of important problems as to petitioner's right to a jury determination of the issue of causation."

Recognizing that, where courts have tended to remand in light of new factual developments, it has been in the context of injunctive relief scenarios or other prospective relief, "not attempts to revise jury verdicts"

Holding that an award of compensation for future lost earnings, or "front pay," is an equitable matter for the court, not the jury

Finding that "every word and every provision [of an insurance policy] is to be given effect"