action.”); see also Albert v. Wesley Health Services, 2001 WL 503241, *2, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6119, *6-8 (D.Kan.2001). 3 . 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). 4 . See Hillman v. United States Postal Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 363, *5 (D.Kan.2002), citing Sanchez v. Philip Morris Inc., 774 F.Supp. 626, 629 (W.D.Okla.1991). 5 . See Acrey v. American Sheep Inds. Ass’n, 981 F.2d 1569, 1576 (10th Cir.1992). 6 . See Wulf v. City of Wichita, 883 F.2d 842, 871 (10th Cir.1989). 7 . See Godinet v. Management & Training Corp., 56 Fed.Appx. 865 (10th Cir.2003). 8 . See Plaintiffs Trial Exhibit No. 6. 9 . See Estate of Pitre v. Western Electric Co., 975 F.2d 700, 704 (10th Cir.1992), see also Whatley, 707 F.2d at 1138; Sears v. Bennett, 645 F.2d 1365, 1378 (10th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). 10 . See Rahn v. Junction City Foundry, Inc.,
holding that a district court has wide discretion to modify an injunction based on changed circumstances or new facts holding that trial justice has wide discretion to determine relevancy of evidence holding that trial court has wide discretion in determining sufficiency of foundation for opinion testimony holding family court has wide discretion in determining how marital property is to be distributed holding that the court has wide discretion in fashioning remedies to make victims of discrimination whole