Mike AKRABAWI, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. CARNES COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that district courts “might be better advised” to rely on the statutory language in Title VII in framing jury instructions
• suggesting that district courts “might be better advised” to rely on the statutory language in Title VII in framing jury instructions
• cautioning against the frequent utilization of Rule 807, lest the residual exception become “the exception that swallows the hearsay rule”
• affirming a district court’s denial of a fee award where the employee’s own actions substantially contributed to the employment decision and where there was no evidence of widespread or pervasive discrimination
• “We begin by noting this circuit’s emphasis on narrowly construing the residual provision to prevent it from becoming the exception that swallows the hearsay rule.”
• “We . . . narrowly constru[e] the residual provision to prevent it from becoming the 10 As of 1997, Rule 807 is the successor provision to Rule 803(24) and Rule 804(b)(5). See FED. R. EVID. 807 (advisory committee’s note to 1997 amendment) (“The contents of Rule 803(24

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).