 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
laim, and entered judgment in favor of defendants Abbott, Mr. Insani, and Mr. Lindberg, and against plaintiff on his constructive discharge claim.
{ } The trial court entered a JNOV in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on his age discrimination claim. In the alternative, the trial court conditionally granted defendants' motion for a new trial on plaintiff's claim of age discrimination should the JNOV in favor of defendants on this issue be vacated or reversed on appeal.
{ } In the alternative, the trial court conditionally granted defendants' motion for remittitur on the amount of compensatory damages should both the JNOV in favor of defendants and the decision granting a conditional new trial on his age discrimination claim be vacated or reversed on appeal. Defendants' motion for a new trial on the issue of the amount of compensatory damages was conditionally denied unless plaintiff rejects a remittitur of $600,000.
{ } In the alternative, the trial court conditionally granted defendants' motion for remittitur on the amount of punitive damages should both the JNOV in favor of defendants and the decision granting defendants a conditional new trial on plaintiff's age discrimination claim be vacated or reversed on appeal. Defendants' motion for a new trial on the issue of the amount of the punitive damages award was conditionally denied unless plaintiff rejects a remittitur of $21,000,000.
{ } In addition, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on his motion for an award of prejudgment interest. Lastly, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on plaintiff's application to set attorney fees.
{ } Plaintiff appeals and has asserted the following eight assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF AGE DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON THE "LAW OF THE CASE" DOCTRINE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF AGE DISCRIMINATION.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR REMITTITUR.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING CERTAIN EVIDENCE RELATED TO PLAINTIFF'S CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CLAIM WHICH RESULTED IN AN ADVERSE JURY VERDICT ON PLAINTIFF'S CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CLAIM.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING CERTAIN EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN EXCLUDING EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR VERDICT AGAINST TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION.
VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES.
VIII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST.
{ } Defendants Abbott, Mr. Insani, and Mr. Lindberg, cross-appeal from the trial court's judgment and have asserted the following three cross-assignments of error:
1. The Trial Court Erred in Concluding That the Jury's Verdict Was Not Influenced by Passion or Prejudice and Denying Defendants' Motion for a New Trial on This Ground.
2. The Remitted Punitive Damages of $4,000,000 Remain Grossly and Unconstitutionally Excessive.
3. The Remitted Compensatory Damages of $100,000 Remain Grossly Excessive.
{ } Because both involve the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for JNOV, we will address plaintiff's first and second assignments of error together. In plaintiff's first assignment of error, he contends that the trial court erred in granting a JNOV as
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|