Pa. appeals court upholds $188M Wal-Mart verdict
Headline Legal News
A $188 million class-action verdict against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Sam's Club over payment to employees for rest breaks and off-the-clock work was upheld Friday by a Pennsylvania appeals court.
A three-judge Superior Court panel said there was sufficient evidence at trial to conclude there had been a breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violations of state labor laws.
The judges also ruled in a 211-page opinion that the presiding Philadelphia judge erred in determining some of the plaintiffs' legal fees, and sent that part of the case back for recalculation.
The 2006 trial, which lasted 32 days, resulted in a finding that Wal-Mart did not pay employees for all the work they performed and did not let them take their paid, mandatory rest breaks, the judges wrote. The court awarded $46 million in attorneys' fees.
Wal-Mart spokesman Greg Rossiter said the retail giant believes the court decision was wrong in a number of respects and looks forward to additional review in the courts.
Related listings
-
Va suit settled over coalbed methane rights
Headline Legal News 06/24/2011Southwest Virginia landowners have reached a $3.4 million tentative settlement in a class-action lawsuit over coalbed methane rights. The Bristol Herald Courier reports Wednesday's settlement would be split among 1,850 landowners. The federal lawsuit...
-
Casino owner cited in complaint against Ala. judge
Headline Legal News 06/22/2011A casino owner accused of buying votes in Alabama for pro-gambling legislation is cited in a judicial complaint against a former state judge, who's accused of letting a gambling lobbyist bankroll her re-election campaign while she was handling a cust...
-
Court says age must be considered in interrogation
Headline Legal News 06/20/2011A divided Supreme Court said Thursday that police and courts must consider a child's age when examining whether a boy or girl is in custody, a move the court's liberals called "common sense" but the conservatives called an "extreme makeover" of Miran...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.