James P. Scanlan, Attorney at Law

Home Page

Curriculum Vitae

Publications

Published Articles

Conference Presentations

Working Papers

Journal Comments

Truth in Justice Articles

Measuring Health Disp

Outline and Guide to MHD

Summary to MHD

Solutions

Solutions Database

Irreducible Minimums

Pay for Performance

Between Group Variance

Concentration Index

Gini Coefficient

Reporting Heterogeneity

Cohort Considerations

Relative v Absolute Diff

NHDR Technical Issues

MHD A Articles

MHD B Conf Presentations

MHD D Journal Comments

Consensus/Non-Consensus

Institutional Corresp

Scanlan's Rule

Outline and Guide to SR

Summary to SR

Semantic Issues

Employment Tests

Case Study

Case Study Answers

Subgroup Effects

Illogical Premises

Illogical Premises II

Inevitable Interaction

Feminization of Poverty S

Explanatory Theories

Mortality and Survival

Immunization Disparities

Truncation Issues

Collected Illustrations

Income Illustrations

Framingham Illustrations

Life Table Illustrations

NHANES Illustrations

Credit Score Illustration

Representational Disp

Statistical Signif SR

Comparing Averages

Meta-Analysis

Case Control Studies

Mortality and Survival 2

Measures of Association

Educational Disparities

Nuclear Deterrence

Employment Discrimination

Job Segregation

Measuring Hiring Discr

Disparate Impact

Four-Fifths Rule

Lending Disparities

Disparities - High Income

Underadjustment Issues

Lathern v. NationsBank

Holder/Perez Letter

Discipline Disparities

Disparate Treatment

Los Angeles SWPBS

Suburban Disparities

Disabilities - PL 108-446

NEPC Colorado Study

Duncan/Ali Letter

Feminization of Poverty

Affirmative Action

Affirm Action for Women

Other Affirm Action

Justice John Paul Stevens

Statistical Reasoning

The Sears Case

The AT&T Consent Decree

Cross v. ASPI

Vignettes

Times Higher Issues

Gender Diff in DADT Term

Adjustment Issues

Percentage Points

Odds Ratios

Statistical Signif Vig

Journalists & Statistics

Prosecutorial Misconduct

Outline and Guide

Misconduct Summary

B1 Agent Cain Testimony

B1a Bev Wilsh Diversion

B2 Bk Entry re Cain Call

B3 John Mitchell Count

B3a Obscuring Msg Slips

B3b Missing Barksdale Int

B4 Park Towers

B5 Dean 1997 Motion

B6 Demery Testimony

B7 Sankin Receipts

B7a Sankin HBS App

B8 DOJ Complicity

B9 Doc Manager Complaints

B9a Fabricated Gov Exh 25

B11a DC Bar Complaint

Letters (Misconduct)

Links Page

Misconduct Profiles

Arlin M. Adams

Jo Ann Harris

Bruce C. Swartz

Swartz Addendum 2

Swartz Addendum 3

Swartz Addendum 4

Swartz Addendum 7

Robert E. O'Neill

O'Neill Addendum 7

Paula A. Sweeney

Robert J. Meyer

Lantos Hearings

Password Protected

OIC Doc Manager Material

DC Bar Materials

Temp Confidential

DV Issues

Document Storage

Pre 1989

1989 - present

Presentations

Prosec Misc Docs

Prosec Misc Docs II

Profile PDFs

Misc Letters July 2008 on

Large Prosec Misc Docs

HUD Documents

Transcripts

Miscellaneous Documents

Unpublished Papers

Letters re MHD

Tables

MHD Comments

Figures

ASPI Documents

Web Page PDFs

Pages Transfer


Thomas R. Cross v. Automated Systems and Programming, Inc. et al.

 

The case of Thomas R. Cross v. Automated Systems and Programming, Inc., et al. was a breach of contract case first tried in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, in October 1998.  Following a week-long trial, a jury found for the plaintiff. 

 

Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (jnov).  The trial judge, the Honorable D. Warren Donohue, though noting that he had never previously granted a jnov in his six years on the bench, granted it in this case, entering judgment for the defendants.  As a precautionary measure, defendants then moved for a conditional new trial to address the possibility that an appellate court might overrule the jnov.  Judge Donohue granted the conditional new trial. 

 

Plaintiff appealed both rulings.  The Maryland Court of Special Appeals overturned the jnov ruling but upheld the grant of a conditional new trial.  The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County where it was tried before a new judge.  After slightly shorter trial, a new jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.  Defendants sought to overturn this verdict or secure a new trial on several grounds.  But the second trial judge let the verdict stand and entered judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,541,029.

 

While with the firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, I represented the defendants in the case.  The defendants consented to my retaining the record in order that I might write about the case one day.

 

The case raises some interesting issues about a jury’s ability to understand complex matters and certain other things.  Whether or not I ever write at any length about the case, as with several other cases to which pages of this site are devoted, I hope eventually to describe some of the issues and events as well as post pertinent documents from the case that will speak for themselves on a number of matters.

 

Presently, the only document posted is the brief of defendants-appellees in the first appeal, which may be accessed by the link below.  It provides a good description of the facts and issues.

 

http://jpscanlan.com/images/Defendants-Appellees_Brief.pdf