Friday, December 9, 2016

Note to Self: Next Jury Trial!!!!


Always remember this!!!!  (Picture from Reader's Digest, Life in these United States, at 37(Dec 2016/Jan 2017).)

Monday, November 28, 2016

Cases --- November 20th through 26th

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Lancaster v. Sprint/United Management Co. (10th Cir., November 23, 2016) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Sprint: Lancaster failed to timely serve process and unwarrantedly sought indeterminate leave under the ADA)


*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Cases --- November 13th through 19th

Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful Termination

Acha v. Dept. of Agriculture (10th Cir., November 14, 2016) (vacating MeritSystems Protection Board decision:  the MSPB lacked jurisdiction to consider whether Acha had been terminated for disclosure of Federal Acquisition Regulation violation)

Discrimination/Retaliation

*Palzer v. Cox Oklahoma Telecom, LLC (10th Cir., November 18, 2016) (reversing dismissal of Palzer's suit for failure of timely service, instead of giving him opportunity to effect service under federal law)

*Lister v. City of Wichita (10th Cir., 2016, November 15, 2016) (affirming dismissal of discrimination claim (harassment) as time barred (85 days after the statutory filing deadline))

Miscellaneous

Mojsilovic v. Board of Regents, University of Oklahoma (10th Cir., November 17, 2016) (affirming dismissal of claim under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. The Mojsilovics claimed that an agent of the University of Oklahoma forced them to work by threatening their immigration status.  The district court, however, concluded the university was entitled to sovereign immunity)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Cases --- October 30th through November 5th

Wages

Sharp v. CGG Land (U.S.), Inc. (10th Cir., November 4, 2016) (affirming exclusion of meal allowance from time-and-a-half overtime calculation)

Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and Disease

Petersen v. Labor Commission (Utah Ct. App., November 3, 2016) (affirming commission determination that surgeries were unnecessary and thus incompensable)

*Paulsen v. Colvin (10th Cir., November 1, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits and supplemental income: the ALJ properly evaluated credibility, weighed the medical evidence, and properly denied her motion to strike the vocational expert's testimony)

*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. They may be cited, however, for persuasive value under Fed.R.App.P. 32.1 and 10th Cir.R. 32.1.

Crook & Taylor Law PLLC ranked as one of the Best Law Firms by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers


On November 1, 2016, U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers, released its 2017 list of Best Law Firms.  D. Scott Crook Law, PC, the predecessor firm to Crook & Taylor Law PLLC, was named as a Utah Metropolitan Tier 1 Firm in the area of "Litigation - Labor & Employment."

Firms included in the 2017 "Best Law Firms" are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers.  Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.  Ranked firms, presented in tiers, are listed on a national and metropolitan scale.  Receiving a tier designation reflects the high level of respect a firm has earned among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and the same practice areas for its abilities, its professionalism and its integrity.  A Metropolitan Tier 1 Ranking is the highest tier ranking a firm can achieve in a metropolitan area