U.S. District Court Relies on Tom Hagemann's Law Review Article on Collective Knowledge in Recent Opinion


United States District Judge Larry Hicks recently handed down an opinion in Ginena, et. al., v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86162 (D. Nev., June 19, 2013), which relied heavily on a law review article co-authored by Gardere Litigation Partner Thomas A. Hagemann and Attorney Joseph Grinstein. In the opinion, Judge Hicks issued rulings on plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in a defamation case, which included a finding that the court had properly instructed the jury on actual malice and rejected plaintiffs' attempted reliance on the "collective knowledge" doctrine. Under the doctrine, Plaintiffs had argued that even if no individual employee at Alaska Airlines acted with actual malice, "the knowledge of all of Alaska's employees […] should be taken into account in determining Alaska's actual malice."

Citing and finding persuasive Hagemann's and Grinstein's analysis in The Mythology of Aggregate Corporate Knowledge: A Deconstruction, 65 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 210 (1997), Judge Hicks stated that the article and related case holdings "make sense" and "guard against a court-led expansion of criminal and civil liability." In his opinion, Judge Hicks said, "As Hagemann and Grinstein argue, the collective knowledge doctrine conflates 'knowing' culpability with 'negligent' culpability, at least when applied to corporate wrongdoing" – something which should only be allowed when there is evidence of corporate willful blindness.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top