Legal Opinion
Palmquist v. Shinseki
District Court, D. Maine
Decided August 26, 2011No. 1:07-cv-00098-JAWPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON POST-VERDICT MOTIONS TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT, FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND FOR NEW TRIAL
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., Chief Judge.
Faced with an adverse jury verdict in this action for retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., Mark S. Palmquist seeks to amend the judgment to grant him mixed-motive remedies, judgment as a matter of law, and, in the alternative, a new trial. The Court denies Mr. Palmquist’s motion for mixed-motive remedies because the law does not authorize those remedies in retaliation cases under the Rehabilitation Act and denies Mr.…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
- United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. AikensSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Palmquist v. ShinsekiCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2012
- BURNETT v. OCEAN PROPERTIES LTDDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2019
- Pitts v. Lindsey & Company IncDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2019