Kimberli Hirst Case

In December 1998, while working at the Bally facility in Bensonhurst, Brennan received a fax requiring her [**5]  attendance at an educational meeting about sexual harassment to be held at the Sheepshead Bay facility (the "1998 Meeting" or "Meeting"). See Brennan Aff. P 8; Tr. at 12. About twenty Bally employees attended the meeting. See Tr. at 14. At the meeting, the employees were shown a video depicting incidents of sexual harassment. See Brennan Aff. P 9; Tr. at 16. Fred Infante, the Bally attorney who had investigated Brennan 's complaint earlier that year, ran the meeting. See Brennan Aff. P 9; Tr. at 15.

A general reading of the opinion reveals that the case involves a question as to whether there was any substantial evidence to show that the individual defendants participated in the battery, and that defendant Rose City was liable vicariously

Procedural posture: The case is before the Northern District of New York after the plaintiff, Howard I. Ginsburg, filed an amended petition as the administrator of the estate of his deceased son, Bradley Marc Ginsburg, asking that the City of Ithaca and Cornell University be held negligent for Bradley’s wrongful death as well as personal injuries and conscious pain and suffering.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Morse, now guilty in this civil suit, filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, which they granted, which has now ended with them coming to a decision by having carefully analyzed the specificities of the present case along with similar cases by which it was preceded.

Suders then resigned from the force and sued the Pennsylvania State Police in Federal District Court, alleging, that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and constructively discharged, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court granted the PSP's motion for summary judgment and held that the PSP was not liable for the supervisors conduct. Suders hostile work environment claim was untenable as a matter of law because she unreasonably failed to benefit herself of the PSP's internal anti-harassment procedures.

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Summary: Guinn’s stated that trial court abused the discretion in objecting Dotson’s second amended complaint and rule on the motion to filing a certificate of merit late.

No. The Court’s ruling was 7-0 in favor of the mayor and city council of Baltimore.

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court concluded that even though there were “identical floor areas, number of parking spaces, the provision of a public plaza, the use of public art, and the orientation of the buildings to ensure water views,” many of these were standard features for high-rise developments and could not be protected because they were simply abstract ideas. Furthermore, there were differences between the two designs including the dimensions of a glass roof on the building, the absence of ornamental ribbons in the defendant’s design, and additional balconies that were not present in the plaintiff’s designs. The court viewed these differences as substantial enough so that no reasonable person would view the structures as being substantially similar. As such, the court concluded that even in the pleading stages of litigation (before discovery), the trial court did not err in dismissing the claim.

The court ruled that State could not sue for equitable indemnity or contribution based on the fact that there was no evidence that Moffatt owed a duty of care or that Moffatt was negligent. The court also determined that there was no contractual relationship between State and Major and that a person or other property was not damaged. Based on the two core findings, all cross complaints made by State are disregarded and State is found to be solely responsible for the damages. Moffatt is also awarded costs on the appeal.

DECISION No. US Court of Appeal, Ninth circuit, affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss Brody and Crawford's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Office of the Court Administrator v. Juan (A.M. No. P-03-1726, 22 July 2004, 434 SCRA 654, 658)