164 results for 'filedAt:"2023-08-23"'.
J. Russell partially grants the county's motion to exclude certain expert opinion testimony in this lawsuit brought by the parents of a detainee who died while in detention, due to a perforated ulcer. The medical doctor's testimony will be limited to "her opinions concerning the quality of medical care provided" to the detainee. Also, the retired police officer will be allowed to testify as to "proper procedures for monitoring inmates or responding to emergency situations," though he cannot offer inappropriate legal conclusions.
Court: USDC Western District of Oklahoma , Judge: Russell, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv1252, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Health Care, Experts
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court improperly granted the mall's motion to dismiss a slip and fall suit stemming from a woman's fall in the parking lot. The mall failed to establish that it did not have constructive notice of the oily condition that allegedly caused the woman's fall. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 04355, Categories: Tort
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Bredar denies a chemicals manufacturer its motion to strike the expert testimony of another such company in a patent infringement case. The manufacturer argues that the owner of the other company does not have the expertise to be testifying about the matter at hand, combustion promoters. However, based on the owner’s education and experience, he is qualified to testify.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Bedar, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2636, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, Patent, Experts
J. Sannes rules on two motions in limine on an employment discrimination complaint that alleges a large national distribution company declined to hire a woman because she is deaf. The employer is permitted to introduce evidence that shows the applicant is a cancer survivor and considers herself to be disabled, finding it directly relevant to questions of discriminatory animus, while it is precluded from presenting evidence related to income she earned from supplemental security, which the employer was hoping to use to offset a possible award for backpay.
Court: USDC Northern District of New York, Judge: Sannes, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 5:20cv1628, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Discovery, Employment Discrimination
J. Robinson finds that the trial court should not have ordered retroactive application of the final child support award of $700 per month and for the wife to repay the overpayment of child support. The parties stipulated to the determination that the husband was to pay child support in the amount of $2,500 per month, and there was no provision that a final determination was to be retroactive to the date of judicial demand. Further, the husband does not show good cause for applying the 2021 judgment that his payments should have been $700 per month to be applied retroactively. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 55,137-CA, Categories: Family Law, Contract
J. Lin remands to the King County Superior Court the former animal keeper's claim that the zoo denied her, an Asian woman, a promotion and forced her to resign because she voiced concerns about the zoo's employee diversity. The former animal keeper's Washington Law Against Discrimination claims are substantive rights under Washington law, and they do not have to be interpreted by the collective bargaining agreement to be resolved.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Lin, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv627, NOS: Labor/Management Relations - Labor, Categories: Jurisdiction, Employment Discrimination, Labor
J. Bradford finds that the trial court should have suppressed methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia discovered during a search of defendant's person because nothing indicates the officer was reasonably concerned for his own safety or that defendant was engaging in criminal activity. Reversed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bradford, Filed On: August 23, 2023, Case #: 23A-CR-17, Categories: Drug Offender, Search