Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Kerman v. City of New York
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 28, 2004No. Docket No. 03-7243Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRaggi, Circuit Judge
I concur in the majority opinion to the extent it reverses the grant of judgment as a matter of law to Crossan. I respectfully dissent, however, from Part III.C.2, which concludes that the district court committed fundamental error in failing to charge the jury that it could award Kerman compensatory damages for lost liberty based on the loss of his time while he was unlawfully confined. See Maj. Op. at 129, 132 (“[T]he trial court should have informed the jury that if it found Crossan acted without probable cause it should award Kerman compensation for the loss of his liberty.... Kerman…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Memphis Community School District v. StachuraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Scs Communications, Inc. And Stephen C. Swid, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. The Herrick Company, Inc. And Norton Herrick, Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi Usa, Inc., and Fendi Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- Shain v. EllisonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.