Search for: "Donlin v. Donlin"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2009, 1:46 am
iStock_000000355220_L1.jpg In a Title VII sex discrimination employment suit, the plaintiff's opinion testimony on her estimated lost earnings and pension benefits should not have been admitted as lay opinion testimony under FRE 701, nor as expert testimony under FRE 702, in Donlin v. [read post]
1 Jun 2012, 3:22 am
U.S. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2021, 2:24 pm
Federal Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2021.html Corey Lee Dove v. [read post]
12 May 2009, 12:16 am
iStock_000001063043Medium.jpg In gender discrimination action, trial court erred in admitting plaintiff's lay testimony about damages, including the pensions portion of her back pay and lost wages, which should have been the subject of expert testimony under FRE 702 where she was a temporary employee and lacked personal knowledge of "the company's salary structure, advancement opportunities, pay raises, or employment patterns," in Donlin v. [read post]
4 Oct 2023, 3:02 pm
(Water Rights; Federal Trust Duties) Pollard, et al. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2017, 6:25 am
Company-wide information was relevant and the requests were not overly broad because Petco had a centralized corporate decision-making team for all employees’ FMLA or ADA requests (Donlin v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 12:56 pm
’ Donlin v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 5:07 am
[Donline v. [read post]
1 May 2009, 3:48 am
Salazar, No. 08-1097ADEASee issue description at Public CitizenØ SCOTUS docket hereFederal Appellate Court DecisionsØ Paul Mollica's Daily Developments in EEO Law here3rd CircuitØ Donlin v. [read post]
