{"id":56,"date":"2023-03-27T22:08:16","date_gmt":"2023-03-27T22:08:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/skglaw.com.previewc38.carrierzone.com\/?page_id=56"},"modified":"2023-03-27T22:08:17","modified_gmt":"2023-03-27T22:08:17","slug":"reported-decisions","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/?page_id=56","title":{"rendered":"Reported Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><em>ComTran Group, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor<\/em>, 722 F.3d 1304 (11th. Cir. 2013) (requiring the Secretary of Labor to prove employer knowledge of a supervisor&#8217;s misconduct in citations proposed by OSHA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Harrison v. Digital Health Plan<\/em>, 183 F.3d 1235 (11th. Cir. 1999) (establishing the statute of limitations in the Eleventh Circuit for benefit claims under employee retirement and benefit plans governed by ERISA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Breitenbach v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.<\/em>, 181 F.R.D. 544, (ND GA 1998) (limiting collection of costs by prevailing parties in federal employment litigation)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>United States Secretary of Labor v. K.E.R. Enterprises, Inc.<\/em>, OSHRC No. 08-1225 (2013) (clarifying an employer&#8217;s eligibility for an award of fees and costs under the federal Equal Access to Justice Act in the successful defense of an OSHA citation)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Glisson-Coker, Inc. v. Coker<\/em>, 260 Ga. App. 270, 581 S.E.2d 303 (2003) (limiting court jurisdiction to parties or persons under subpoena or voluntarily before the court)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Goldston v. Bank of America Corp.<\/em>, 259 Ga. App. 690, 577 S.E.2d 864 (2003) (establishing that fraud in a confidential relationship can toll a limitations period indefinitely)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ComTran Group, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, 722 F.3d 1304 (11th. Cir. 2013) (requiring the Secretary of Labor to prove employer knowledge of a supervisor&#8217;s misconduct in citations proposed by OSHA) Harrison v. Digital Health Plan, 183 F.3d 1235 (11th. Cir. 1999) (establishing the statute of limitations in the Eleventh Circuit for benefit&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/?page_id=56\" class=\"\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Reported Decisions<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":5,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-56","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/56","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=56"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/56\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":57,"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/56\/revisions\/57"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/skglaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=56"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}