Ervin v. Cushman & Wakefield

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding plaintiff’s offer of his “suspicions of impropriety as proof of the defendants’ misconduct before the grand jury” insufficient to rebut presumption
• granting summary judgment on malicious prosecution claim where the plaintiff did not present any “competing testimony plus” and therefore did not rebut the presumption of probable cause
• “[Plaintiff] has supplied only his suspicions of impropriety as proof of the defendants’ misconduct before the grand jury.”
• respectfully declining to apply Tromp to bar Plaintiff’s claim because Tromp did not consider the relevant precedent
• \[T]he meaning of an ambiguous agreement as to which no extrinsic evidence exists is a question of law to be determined solely by the court.\
• “It is settled that joinder is improper where ‘the plaintiff does no more than assert that the defendants merely committed the same type of violation in the same way.’” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).