ESPENSCHIED

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

• State v. Wilkins, 534 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1988)
  …ion of any fundamental right in spite of its possible motivation. This case is, therefore, no different from pretrial amendment where the state can alter the charges at will. See United States v. Corona, 804 F. 2d 1568 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 1896, 95 L.Ed.2d 503 (1987). In Weed the state moved to increase the charges after a jury deadlock and mistrial. The decisive issue there was application of the speedy trial rule and not prosecutorial vindictiveness. However, this Court…
• LAC D'Amiante DU Quebec v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 864 F.2d 1033 (3d Cir. 1988)
  …the state’s strong interest in centralizing claims against an insolvent insurer into a single forum where they can be efficiently and consistently disposed of.” Law Enforcement Insurance Co. v. Corcoran, 807 F. 2d 38, 44 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 1896, 95 L.Ed.2d 503 (1987). One of the chief purposes of New York’s regulatory scheme would be lost if an insurer in liquidation had to dissipate its funds defending unconnected suits across the country. As the New York Court of Appeals…
• Holland v. Jefferson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 883 F.2d 1307 (7th Cir. 1989)
  …an adverse action by her employer; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected expression and the adverse action. See, e.g., Jennings v. Tinley Park Community Consol. School Dist. No. 146, 796 F. 2d 962, 966-67 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1017, 107 S.Ct. 1895, 95 L.Ed.2d 502 (1987); Klein v. Trustees of [*1314] Indiana Univ., 766 F. 2d 275, 280 (7th Cir.1985); Reeder-Baker v. Lincoln Nat’l. Corp., 649 F.Supp. 647, 657 (N.D.Ind.1986), aff'd, 834 F. 2d 1373 (7th Cir.1987). In order for the…