Legal Opinion
Bowie v. Maddox
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided January 6, 2010No. Civil Action 03-948(RCL)PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff David M. Bowie moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 for relief from this Court’s order of March 31, 2008, 540 F.Supp.2d 204, denying plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial. Plaintiff also moves for post-judgment discovery. Upon consideration of the motions [150,159], the oppositions [155, 160], the replies [158, 161], the entire record of the case, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the motions should be denied.
I. Background
In August 2002, plaintiff was terminated from his…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- McNeil v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Mohasco Corp. v. SilverSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Richardson, Roy Dale v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Bond v. United States Department of JusticeDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- In Re Old Carco LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- Madison Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Carvajal v. Drug Enforcement AdministrationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Keepseagle v. VilsackDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2015
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.