Chandramouli Vaidyanathan brought suit against Seagate US LLC and Seagate Technology LLC (collectively, Seagate), alleging a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 181.64, false statements as inducement to entering employment, and a common law claim of promissory estoppel. The jury returned a verdict for Vaidyanathan on his statutory claim, awarding him $1.9 million in damages. The district court

The defendant, Jeffrey Pasiak, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to set aside the verdict of a jury awarding $835,700 in damages to the plaintiff Sara Socci1 for injuries and losses she claimed to have suffered due to his tortious conduct toward her during an incident at his home office on May 9, 2006. The plaintiff claimed, more particularly, and the jury found, by i

This appeal concerns the legality of actions taken by the City of Frankenmuth (the City) to keep a Wal-Mart supercenter from being built on land owned by the Loesel family in Frankenmuth Township (the Township). As the result of a post purchase-agreement ordinance that restricted the size No. 10-2354 Loesel, et al. v. City of Frankenmuth Page 2 of any new buildings on the property to 65,000 square

Rhonda Dowling, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appeals the dismissal of her class action and individual complaint against Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers). The trial court concluded that the five-year period to bring the action to trial (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.310) expired on June 17, 2010, pursuant to the parties‟ written stipulation. The court therefore granted F

Appellant Southwest Galvanizing, Inc. (―SWG‖) sued appellee Eagle Fabricators, Inc. (―Eagle‖) for breach of contract after Eagle allegedly failed to pay SWG for ―hot dip‖ galvanizing services performed by SWG. A jury found in favor of SWG and awarded damages and attorney‘s fees. The trial court signed a final judgment in conformity with the jury‘s verdict, with the exception that t

This negligence action grew out of a highway collision in Iowa. Kala Holtkamp was driving at night with her fiancé, Christopher Davis, and her two year old son, K.H., when she collided with the rear of a semi truck driven by Vanya Ilieva Atanasova. Davis was killed, K.H. was seriously injured, and Holtkamp fractured a vertebra in her neck. Holtkamp, K.H.'s father, and representatives for Davis an

Troy Sampson committed suicide while detained at the Dodge County Jail (DCJ) in Fremont, Nebraska. Sampson’s mother, Sherry Luckert, acting as the personal representative of Sampson’s estate, sued Dodge County and jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they were deliberately indifferent to Sampson’s medical needs, violating his due process rights. A jury found Dodge County and DCJâ

George and Margaret Paeth faced many hurdles from Worth Township in trying to renovate their home. Eventually, they took the Township to court, where a jury awarded them $600,000 on First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process claims. The Paeths did not establish a procedural due process violation, because the process they were afforded was constitutionally sufficient. There was, however

This appeal and cross-appeal arise from a jury verdict and award of damages and injunctive relief in favor of Doctors Diane Gowski and Sally Zachariah in their discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment suit against the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).1 We must decide whether this circuit recognizes a retaliatory hostile work environment claim and, if so, whethe

This Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision in Fairchild v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 385 S.C. 344, 683 S.E.2d 818 (Ct. App. 2009). The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial a negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident. In relevant part, the Court of Appeals determined (1) Marilee Fairch

On March 4, 2009, appellant, Yiannis Yiallouros,1 filed suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, against appellee, John David Tolson, and alleged that appellee was liable in negligence for damages, including pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of present and future earnings, and loss of consortium. On April 28, 2010, the jury found in favor of appellant and awarded $32,000.88 for pa

In this case, we have been asked to sit in judgment once again in the case of McQuitty v. Spangler, about which we previously opined, 410 Md. 1, 976 A.2d 1020 (2009) (hereinafter McQuitty I). In a series of post-trial motions following McQuitty I, Appellant, Dr. Donald Spangler, moved to reduce the verdict in favor of the Appellees, Dylan McQuitty and his parents Peggy and Gary McQuitty. After the

Appellant, Yue Yan, timely appeals the final judgment of the trial court entered in favor of the appellee, Barbara Byers. We agree with Yan that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for new trial because she was not provided reasonable notice of the jury trial. Yan filed a statement of claim against Byers in small claims court, alleging that Byers tortiously interfered with

The defendant Club, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Patrick Wood.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly allowed the plaintiff’s expert to testify, (2) the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on liability for actions of third parties, (3) the evidence was insufficient to establish that

The defendants, United Parcel Service, Inc., and Kevin Trudelle,1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the plaintiff, Michael Tomick. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly (1) denied their motions to direct and to set aside the verdict with respect to the plaintiff’s claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress and viol

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 164 L. Ed. 2d 689 (2006), the United States Supreme Court concluded ‘‘that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for [f]irst [a]mendment1 purposes, and the [c]onstitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.’’ The principal i

The plaintiff, Carmen I. Perez-Dickson, brought this action claiming that the defendants, the board of education of the city of Bridgeport (board), Henry R. Kelly, the former assistant superintendent of the Bridgeport public schools (school district), and Daniel Shamas,1 the former acting superintendent of the school district, disciplined her for exercising her rights guaranteed by the first amend

The central issue presented by this appeal1 is whether General Statutes § 46a-81c (1)2 imposes liability on employers for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent their employees from being subjected to hostile work environments based on their sexual orientation. The plaintiff, Luis Patino, commenced this action against the defendant, his former employer, Birken Manufacturing Company, claiming

Philip Morris USA, Inc. (“PM USA�) appeals the trial court’s final judgment entered in favor of Elaine Hess, as surviving spouse and personal representative of the estate of her deceased husband, Stuart Hess. PM USA raises three issues on appeal. First, it contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the fraudulent concealment claim because it

This case arises from a dispute between a lessee and its commercial landlord. Appellants, Mary Gret McKenzie d/b/a Gen’s Antiques and Mary Gret McKenzie (collectively, “Gen’s Antiques�), leased retail spaces in an antiques mall from appellee, Positive Action International, Inc. d/b/a Grace Hart & Co. (“Hart & Co.�). Gen’s Antiques alleged multiple causes of action, including const

Lorne Jackson, appellee, sued the appellant, Marquette Transportation Company Gulf-Inland, LLC (“Marquette�), under the Jones Act for personal injuries he sustained while employed on one of Marquette’s vessels. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in Jackson’s favor. In three issues, Marquette argues that (1) the evidence and findings of fact do not support the concl

Jose and Nayeli Carrillo, father and daughter, sued Boise Tire Co. (Boise Tire), alleging that Boise Tire improperly performed a tire rotation on their vehicle and that as a result, the Carrillos and Marisela Lycan, Jose’s partner and Nayeli’s mother, were in a motor vehicle accident. Marisela was killed, Jose was injured, and eighteen-month old Nayeli underwent testing that revealed no physic

In this appeal, we address the factors that the district court must consider when determining whether to grant or deny a motion for a preferential trial date to avoid the expiration of NRCP 41(e)’s five-year period. We conclude that, in accordance with our decision in Monroe, Ltd. v. Central Telephone Co., 91 Nev. 450, 456, 538 P.2d 152, 156 (1975), when evaluating such a motion, the district co

In this asbestos personal injury case, a jury found ArvinMeritor, Inc. (ArvinMeritor) liable to Gordon and Emily Bankhead1 for compensatory and punitive damages. On appeal, ArvinMeritor does not challenge the jury‟s verdicts as to liability or the amount of compensatory damages. It contends only that the trial court erred in declining to reduce the amount of punitive damages awarded by the jury.

In this fraud in the inducement action against the general partners of a limited partnership, a jury found in favor of respondent George J. Miske, as assignee of a limited partner‟s fraud claim, and the court entered judgment for $1,408,212.07, including compound prejudgment interest. Following the denial of posttrial motions, the court awarded Miske substantial attorney fees, based on the attor