Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s conclusory reference to a statutory provision in the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations, without more, “did not give the opposing party fair notice of such a claim”
• noting that drivers “performed work that was the essence of FedEx’s business, namely, 'transportation and delivery service’ ”
• noting that drivers “performed work that was the essence of FedEx’s business, namely, ‘transportation and delivery service’”
• holding, under Missouri law, that FedEx’s appearance requirements “show the extent of FedEx’s control” over drivers’ work
• ruling to accept untimely materials due to excusable neglect reviewed for abuse of discretion
• affirming exclusion of untimely materials because party seeking admission of materials failed to make “affirmative showing of excusable neglect”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).