top of page
loading.gif
minitalk.gif
Civil Litigation - Private
comment #:
20947
rating:
3.2
average rating is 3.2 out of 5
No ratings yet
Re: Hart vs. Epstein. 1) She should have recused herself. 2) Bifurcation was an abuse of judicial discretion. 3) She allowed improper inferences. 4) She refused to allow the jury to know that the U.S. Department of Labor had found in favor of the active reservist called to active duty. 5) She refused to charge the jury that the decision by the Department of Justice was not on the merits, which is the law. 6) She refused to charge the jury to find on the cause of action for retaliation, although she expressed surprise that there had been no hearing on the fallacious charge of the reservist violating restrictive covenant. 7) She determined that a disinterested witness should be characterized the same as a party witness.
7/15/19, 2:13 AM
Hon. Holly B. Fitzsimmons (Recalled)

Send reply to the comment poster:

note: comment poster will be able to reply directly to your email

SUBMIT

© 2019 by The Robing Room

bottom of page