Just when I thought it was safe to poke fun at trial practitioners who are deathly afraid of appellate practice and procedure, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit comes out with a decision that makes me wish I’d never raised the subject. Even the old grumpy guy-normally a real stickler for draconian application of procedural rules-is scratching his head over this one.
The case is Talano v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2001). In it, Dr. Talano sued his former employer for age discrimination and breach of contract. The district court granted the employer summary judgment on both claims. Talano thought the district court’s legal analysis was off-the-mark, so he filed a motion for “reconsideration” within ten days after the entry of judgment. In his motion, Talano stated that he sought reconsideration of the court’s decision on the age discrimination claim “for several reasons which will be more fully addressed by a Memorandum . . . which Plaintiff seeks leave to file.” On the contract issue, Talano’s motion alleged that the district court’s decision had “misapplied fundamental principles of contract law, failed to apply other well-recognized principles, and [was] in conflict with precedent of the 7thCircuit construing Illinois state contract law.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
