State v. Korff

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the cap on compensatory and punitive damages applied to the lawsuit as a whole
• holding that proof of actual damages is a prerequisite to recovery of statutory damages on the ground that waivers of the federal government's sovereign immunity must be narrowly con- strued in favor of the government
• holding that, because the employee “was suspected of making false statements and she was allegedly intimidating and threatening people and otherwise dividing the U.S. Attorney’s office,” the investigator “did not violate the Privacy Act when he interviewed others before interviewing Hudson”
• holding that the doc- trine that \courts must strictly construe waivers of immunity\ requires that the Privacy Act damages provision, \when it is being applied against the Government . . . must be narrowly interpreted\ on the question of whether § 552a(g)(4)(A
• denying plaintiff recovery of damages above cap where jury awarded $250,000 for sex discrimination, $500,000 for retaliation, and $750,000 for the constructive discharge
• analyzing claims under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. S 206(d), and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. S 552a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).