Marlow v. Clarendon City of

E.D. Arkansas

Marlow v. Clarendon City of

DecidedJuly 14, 2022

Docket4:19-cv-00666

StatusUnknown

This text of Marlow v. Clarendon City of (Marlow v. Clarendon City of) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marlow v. Clarendon City of, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOHN MARLOW PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:19-CV-00666-BSM CITY OF CLARENDON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER John Marlow’s motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment [Doc. No. 70] is denied. Whether to grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is discretionary. Der v. Connolly, 666 F.3d 1120, 1126 (8th Cir. 2012). The key question is whether a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jd. Marlow states that

a new trial is warranted because the evidence does not support the verdict. Specifically, Marlow argues that subjective intent is not an element of a claim under the Arkansas Whistleblower Act. As defendants correctly point out, the statute requires a good faith communication to an appropriate authority, Ark. Code. Ann. section 21-1-603, and as the agreed jury instructions state, the communication must have been made in a time and manner which gave the public employer reasonable notice. Doc. No. 64. Marlow’s motion is denied because the verdict was not against the clear, overwhelming, or great weight of the evidence. See McBryde v. Carey Lumber Co., 819 F.2d 185, 189 (8th Cir. 1987). IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2022.

Biren 2s A G8o_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOHN MARLOW PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. 4:19-CV-00666-BSM CITY OF CLARENDON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER John Marlow’s motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment [Doc. No. 70] is denied. Whether to grant a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 is discretionary. Der v. Connolly, 666 F.3d 1120, 1126 (8th Cir. 2012). The key question is whether a new trial is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Jd. Marlow states that

a new trial is warranted because the evidence does not support the verdict. Specifically, Marlow argues that subjective intent is not an element of a claim under the Arkansas Whistleblower Act. As defendants correctly point out, the statute requires a good faith communication to an appropriate authority, Ark. Code. Ann. section 21-1-603, and as the agreed jury instructions state, the communication must have been made in a time and manner which gave the public employer reasonable notice. Doc. No. 64. Marlow’s motion is denied because the verdict was not against the clear, overwhelming, or great weight of the evidence. See McBryde v. Carey Lumber Co., 819 F.2d 185, 189 (8th Cir. 1987). IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2022.

Biren 2s A G8o_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marlow v. Clarendon City of, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlow-v-clarendon-city-of-ared-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack