“As a general rule, he decision to set aside a verdict entails the exercise of a broad legal discretion ․ that, in the absence of clear abuse, we shall not disturb.” Id., 776. “Similarly, should not set aside a verdict it is apparent that there was some evidence which the jury might reasonably reach conclusion, and should not refuse to set it aside the manifest injustice of the verdict is so plain and palpable as clearly to denote that some mistake was made by the jury in the application of legal principles ․” Rawls v. “The standard of review applied to the rendering of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is the same as the standard of review for directed verdicts ․ The question is whether the verdict clearly was against the weight of the evidence, indicating that the jury did not apply the law correctly to the facts ․ Directed verdicts are not favored in Connecticut jurisprudence ․ A verdict may be directed, however, when the decisive question is one of law or when the claim is that there is insufficient evidence to sustain a favorable verdict.” (Citations omitted.) Message Center Management, Inc. On a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court “must consider the evidence, and all inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, in a light most favorable to the party that was successful at trial ․ This standard of review extends deference to the judgment of the judge and the jury who were present to evaluate witnesses and testimony ․ Judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted only if that the jurors could not reasonably and legally have reached the conclusion that they did reach.” (Citations omitted.) Craine v. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT & MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT The motions have been fully briefed and were argued on September 30, 2013. On July 25, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for liquidated damages (# 173), under the FMLA. Following the return of the verdict, on Jthe defendant filed several post-trial motions including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion to set aside the verdict and a motion for remittitur (post-trial motions). Although the jury rejected the plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages, it found that the plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages in connection with the § 31–290a violation. The jury awarded economic damages in the amount of $103,000. (FMLA), and a provision of the state Workers' Compensation Act, which prohibits discharge or discrimination because an employee has filed a workers' compensation claim, General Statutes § 31–290a. On July 19, 2013, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Jason Bissonnette, against the defendant, his former employer, Highland Park Market, Inc., finding violations of the federal Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE DEFENDANT'S POST–TRIAL MOTIONS 1 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |