Christina Clair Reiss

• Jones v. National Conference of Bar Examiners

  District Court, D. Vermont · 2011-09-07 · cited 13×

  The case involved a visually impaired law student who sued the National Conference of Bar Examiners under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the organization's refusal to allow screen access software for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) denied her equal access to the required test for bar admission. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to compel accommodations such as computer-based screen reader software. The court granted the injunction after finding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because the ADA requires testing entities to provide accommodations that best ensure disabled individuals have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their abilities, and the defendant's offered alternatives like large-print materials were insufficient. The court determined that the balance of equities and public interest favored relief, as the defendant's security concerns could be addressed without denying access and irreparable harm would result from denying the plaintiff the chance to take the exam with effective accommodations.

  civil rightsprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (10,847 words)

• Ellerton v. Ellerton

  District Court, D. Vermont · 2010-10-08 · cited 1×

  This case arose from a jet-ski collision on Lake Champlain between two Canadian residents, resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff and a claim for damages including pain and suffering. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to cap those damages under Canadian law rather than federal maritime or Vermont law. The court granted the motion, holding that admiralty choice-of-law principles from Lauritzen v. Larsen require application of Canadian law because the parties' Canadian domicile, the ownership of the jet-skis by a Canadian corporation, and other factors outweigh the location of the accident. As a result, the Canadian cap on non-pecuniary damages applies, and the plaintiff may not seek or introduce evidence of pain-and-suffering damages exceeding that limit.

  torts & liabilityprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (4,377 words)

• Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

  District Court, D. Vermont · 2010-08-30 · cited 20×

  This case involves dairy farmers in the Northeast who brought antitrust claims under the Sherman Act against Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), Dairy Marketing Services (DMS), Dean Foods, and HP Hood, alleging that the defendants conspired to create monopsony and monopoly power in the fluid Grade A milk market through exclusive supply agreements, thereby suppressing prices paid to farmers. The plaintiffs sought class action status and asserted seven counts, including conspiracy to monopolize and monopsonize, attempts to monopolize or monopsonize, unlawful monopolization and monopsony, price-fixing, and conspiracy. The court addressed defendants' motions to dismiss on grounds including failure to state a claim, Capper-Volstead Act immunity, pleading standards under Iqbal/Twombly, and statute of limitations. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing some claims (such as certain price-fixing allegations against non-DFA/DMS defendants for lack of plausible pleading) while allowing others to proceed, and ruling that affirmative defenses like Capper-Volstead immunity and issues of fraudulent concealment or continuing violations could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

  business & regulatoryprocedure

  Read the full opinion inline ▾ (14,361 words)

Affiliations