From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 16, 1997
135 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1997)

Summary

holding that a gap of one year and three months between firing one employee and hiring another "would not permit a reasonable jury to infer any suspicion of pretext or that [the new employee] was hired" as a replacement

Summary of this case from Phillips v. Stallion Oilfield Servs.

Opinion

No. 97-1211.

December 16, 1997.

E.D.Pa.


DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Affirmed


Summaries of

Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Dec 16, 1997
135 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1997)

holding that a gap of one year and three months between firing one employee and hiring another "would not permit a reasonable jury to infer any suspicion of pretext or that [the new employee] was hired" as a replacement

Summary of this case from Phillips v. Stallion Oilfield Servs.

interpreting Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 [e], which has nearly identical language to K.S.A. 22–3201 [e]: “Unless an additional or different offense is charged or a substantial right of the defendant is prejudiced, the court may permit an information to be amended at any time before the verdict or finding”

Summary of this case from State v. Lowe
Case details for

Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S

Case Details

Full title:Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. v. Babcock Wilcox Co.; Holbrook v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: Dec 16, 1997

Citations

135 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Stasior v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

See Dukes v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 934 F. Supp. 939 (N.D.Ill. 1996); Zarecki v. National…

State v. Lowe

The test focuses on whether the amendment would introduce an element of surprise that would interfere with…