Legal Opinion

Goodman v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 24, 2002No. Nos. 00-2340, 00-2493PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

In this opinion we address two appeals. First, we consider the cross-appeal of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (the “Commission”). It contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in three respects: (1) in making three evidentiary rulings; (2) in denying its motions for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and (b); and (3) in denying its motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Because we disagree with all of the Commission’s contentions, we affirm. Second, we address Appellant Gary…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Branti v. FinkelSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. City of Burlington v. DagueSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Rutan v. Republican Party of IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fitzpatrick v. National Mobile TelevisionDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Jordan v. CCH, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Gary C. Goodman v. Pennsylvania Turnpike CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
  4. United States v. Michael ClauffCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API