Cases

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S [DOC. # 69] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge. Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant, Bridgeport Board of Education (the “Board”). The Plaintiff, Lyman S. Hopkins (“Hopkins”), proceeding pro se, brought this suit alleging violations of Title VII of the

43 A.3d 69 (2012) 304 Conn. 483 Carmen I. PEREZ-DICKSON v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, et al. No. 18401. Supreme Court of Connecticut. Argued May 18, 2011. Decided May 1, 2012. *76 Steven D. Ecker, with whom was Gavan F. Meehan, Hartford, for the appellants-cross appellees (defendants). Max

525 S.E.2d 658 (1999) 206 W.Va. 467 Roy COLLINS, et al., Plaintiffs Below, Appellants, v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Defendant Below, Appellee. No. 25626. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted September 22, 1999. Decided December 6, 1999. *662 John F. Dascoli, Esq., Andrew J. Katz,

Katz, J. The issue before the court is whether General Statutes § 46a-86,1 authorizes the award of dam*93ages for emotional distress and attorney’s fees for a violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (a) (l). 2 We conclude that it does not. The following facts are undisputed. On October 27, 1986, the

GRADY, District Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join in the decision of the court which finds against the Republican and suburban (Rybicki) plaintiffs. I concur in part and dissent in part as to the finding of liability to the black (Crosby) plaintiffs and dissent from the remedy. I also dissent from the approval of the Hispanic (DelValle) settlement.

ACCEPTED 15-24-00120-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/14/2025 6:14 PM No. 15-24-00120-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

DAVID N. HURD, United States District Judge TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...190 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND...190 III. LEGAL STANDARDS...191 A. Judgment as a Matter of Law...191 B. Motion for New Trial...192 C. Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Expenses...192 IV. DISCUSSION...193

OPINION AND ORDER KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiffs Citizens Union of the City of New York and Citizens Union Foundation, Inc. of the City of New York (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action to challenge the constitutionality of New York Executive Law Sections 172-e and 172-f (the “Disclosure Provisions”). Currently pending before this Court is a

PALMER, J. The plaintiff, Thomas Ventura, commenced this action against the named defendant, the town of East Haven, seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he was struck by an unregistered vehicle driven by a third party, Vladimir Trnka. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant is liable for those damages because he would not have incurred them if Jeffrey R. Strand, an

OPINION AND ORDER KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiff Carla Marin (“Plaintiff’), brings this Action against Defendant Town of Southeast (“Defendant” or “Town”), challenging the constitutionality of certain Town sign ordinances on First Amendment grounds. Plaintiff moves for summary judgment “on the constitutionality of [D]efendant’s sign laws from 2011 and 2013 as well as the current or

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-1051 (EGS) v. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al., Defendants. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 25-1111 (EGS) U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,

GRUENDEL, J. In this employment discrimination case, the plaintiff, Michael Jones, appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant, the Department of Children and Families. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that he did not meet his burden of persuasion with respect to his allegations that the defendant subjected him to unlawful discrim

21-1365 (en banc) Soule ex rel. Stanescu v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term 2022 Argued en banc: June 6, 2023 Decided: December 15, 2023 No. 21-1365 SELINA SOULE, A MINOR, BY BIANCA STANESC

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge Plaintiff, Lisa Mendillo, brought this action against her former employer, The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential” or “Defendant”), asserting claims for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), the Family Medical Leave Act (the “FML

OPINION AND ORDER PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: I. Introduction Plaintiffs Automobile Club of New York, Inc., doing business as “AAA New York,” and AAA North Jersey, Inc. (collectively, “AAA”) claim that the privilege log submit*57ted by defendant the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the “P

629 F.Supp.2d 192 (2009) Terral HARDY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF GREENWICH, Defendant. No. 3:06cv833 (MRK). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. June 26, 2009. *193 Lewis H. Chimes, Garrison Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiffs. Aimee Jennifer Wood, Margaret M. Sheahan, Maria E

OPINION & ORDER SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................332 II. BACKGROUND.........................................................335 III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT........................337 IV. MONELL LIABILITY..................................

ORDER JAMES G. DEVER III, Chief Judge. On October 7, 2014, Paul A. Mitchell (“Mitchell” or “plaintiff’), appearing pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1] and a verified complaint against defendants North Carolina Division of Employment Security and Wayne Community College (“WCC”) [D.E. 1-1]. Mitchell seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. See Compl. [D.E. 1-1] 1, 20-21

630 F.3d 326 (2010) Tiffany MOSBY-GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HAGERSTOWN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-2161. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: October 28, 2010. Decided: December 20, 2010. *328 Brian M. Maul, Gordon & Simmons, LLC, Frederick, Maryland, for Appellant. Matthew Dou

813 F.Supp.2d 417 (2011) David FLOYD, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 1034(SAS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. August 31, 2011. *421 Darius Charney, Esq., Sunita Patel, Es