Legal Opinion
Lloyd v. Ashcroft
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 27, 2002No. Civ.A. 97-1287(PLF)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.: Before the Court are defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial or remittitur of the verdict, plaintiffs opposition and defendant’s reply. Upon consideration of the arguments of the parties and the entire record herein, the Court grants defendant’s motion'for judgment as a matter of law in part and denies it in part. 'The Court-denies defendant’s motion for a new trial and his motion for remittitur.
I.BACKGROUND. On October 26, 2001, after an eight-day trial on plaintiff Arthur Lloyd’s claims…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Sarah Kattan, by Her Parents and Next Friends Susan J. Thomas and Joseph Kattan, and Cross-Appellants v. District of Columbia, and Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1993
- Charles Carter v. District of Columbia, Maurice Turner, Chief, Metropolitan Police Department Charles Carter v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- Carita Richardson, Infant, by S. & E. Richardson, Guardians v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Halcomb v. WoodsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Thomas v. MinetaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- Robinson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- Wild v. AlsterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Hardin v. DadlaniDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.