judgment as a matter of law

• Civil procedure - sufficiency of evidence not reviewable in absence of post-verdict judgment as a matter of law or new trial motion - Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.

Civil Procedure--Sufficiency of Evidence Not Reviewable in Absence of Post-Verdict Judgment as a Matter of Law or New Trial Motion--Unitherm Food Syst...

• Suffolk University Law Review
• Vol. 41 Nbr. 1, December 2007

• Dautartas v. Abbott Laboratories, (Ohio 2012)

Trial court properly granted summary judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff-employee's age discrimination, retaliation, and invasion of privacy claims against defendant-employer. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• DEBRAH SOWEMIMO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D. A. O. R. SECURITY, INC. and MOHAMMED ISLAM, Defendants-Appellants. Sowemimo v. D. A. O. R. Security judgment as a matter of law, or for a new trial, the court, (2nd Cir. 2005)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CI...

• Federal Circuits

• Crase v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., (Ohio 2012)

Because the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's claims for age discrimination, breach of contract, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, fraud, and defamation, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.: the Supreme Court clarifies a discrimination plaintiff's evidentiary burden in order to avoid judgment as a matter of law.

In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 2000 WL 743663 (U.S. 2000), the Supreme Court resolved an issue which has stymied the labor and employ...

• Florida Bar Journal
• Vol. 74 Nbr. 9, October 2000

• O'Brien v. Hill, (Ohio 2012)

Because the record did not contain the date the offense was committed, whether the residency restrictions of R.C. 2950.034 were applicable to the defendant could not be determined, and, therefore, he was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Moore v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., (Ohio 2011)

The plaintiff filed suit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections in the Court of Claims of Ohio alleging age and race discrimination pursuant to R.C. Chapter 4112, the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because the claims were barred by their applicable statutes of limitations, the trial court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendant.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Peoples Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Tome, (Ohio 2011)

CIVIL - Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Bank as matter of law as no genuine issues of material fact exists as to ownership of the painting.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Citimortgage, Inc. v. Chapman, (Ohio 2011)

Since Appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the trial court properly granted Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Main v. Gym X-Treme, (Ohio 2012)

Doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars appellant's negligence claim as a matter of law. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriately granted in favor of defendant.

• Ohio Supreme Court