Moser v. Klein

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that FOTETA “does not evince a concern for the protection of drivers who believe that they have been aggrieved through the drug testing process” and so does not _ provide a private right of action for those drivers
• citing, e.g., In re Atlas Van 3 As support for his subsequently filed motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff has submitted a copy of Dr. O’Toole’s July 2019 order for forcible injections of Risperdal Consta and Benadryl (Doc. No. 8 at 5
• “[A] party requesting leave to amend must ‘act with due diligence if it wants to take advantage of the Rule’s liberality.’ ”
• “[I]n defending against a defamationaction, it is sufficient ... to show that the imputation is substantially true .... ” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• When an amended complaint is filed, the new complaint supersedes all previous complaints and controls the case from that point forward.
• “An employee may not file a suit under the ADA if he or she does not possess a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC because he or she has not exhausted his or her remedies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).