Pullman Co. v. Pulliam

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion to dismiss EPA claim when party pleaded 16 specific job duties required of both positions
• plaintiff who complained to employer that coworkers were “often not paid overtime” and “questioned the legality” of employer’s practices would state a FLSA retaliation claim
• “Because raising new arguments for the first time in a reply brief is improper, the Court will not consider these issues . . . .”
• “Because raising new arguments for the first time in a reply brief is improper, the Court will not consider these issues.” (citations omitted)
• “Because raising new arguments for the first time in a reply brief is improper, the Court will not consider these issues[.]” (citations omitted)
• “Because raising new arguments for the first time in a reply brief is improper, the Court will not consider these issues[.]” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).