Judith Goldman v. Citigroup Global Markets 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 statutory and regulatory provisions prevented a state employee from ignoring them, so discretionary-function immunity was not available because “there was no such choice available”
• holding that over a dozen plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies where “[e]ach of” them “filed an administrative claim on a form promulgated by the [state] appeal board”
• finding that, despite not citing- chapter 455B in the district court, the -party “preserved th[e] subject for appellate review”
• finding that, despite not citing chapter 455B in the district court, the party “preserved th[e] subject for appellate review”
• “[Fjiling ... a claim with the state' appeal board is a prerequisite to suit under the [ITCA].”
• “Under these circumstances, we conclude the board had available to it the information it believed it needed to make its administrative determination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).