Legal Opinion

Mozingo v. Oil States Energy Servs., L. L.C.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 10, 2018No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-529PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

The jury's finding the highly compensated exemption did not apply is not against the great weight of the evidence because there is sufficient evidence the grease operators' primary duty did not include non-manual or office work and they did not "customarily or regularly" exercise discretion or independent judgment.

2. We correctly ruled on evidence challenges.

Oil States argues we should grant a new trial based on erroneous evidentiary rulings in the trial with crane operators by: (a) allowing the crane operators to refresh their recollections using documents we excluded from being admissible…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Harper v. Virginia Department of TaxationSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  3. Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. MisselSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  4. Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
  5. Marra v. Philadelphia Housing AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM v. REYNOLDS-BARBOUNISDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API