Quantcast
Home (page 5)

Tag Archives: Evidence

Important Opinions January – December 2018 (access required)

impops18_fea

The “Important Opinions” that appear each week on the front page of Virginia Lawyers Weekly are those chosen by our editors as the most likely to impact law practice or a given subject area of law. Below is a listing, ...

Read More »

Plaintiff’s intended witness did not qualify as “comparator” (access required)

A man challenging his demotion at the transportation administration cannot rely on evidence from another demoted employee because the two were not similarly situated. Background Plaintiff is a former member of the Transportation Senior Executive Service at the Transportation Security ...

Read More »

Defendant led plaintiff to believe no expert needed (access required)

The court held that while an expert should have been required to admit certain physical therapy records about plaintiff’s injuries, the defendant’s response to the plaintiff’s requests for admission reasonably led her to believe no expert was required. Background This ...

Read More »

Plaintiff’s “unclean hands” irrelevant to antitrust relief (access required)

Holding that “unclean hands” is not a defense to equitable relief in antitrust, the court excluded the defendant’s evidence that the plaintiff misappropriated its trade secrets, finding such evidence not probative under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Background Plaintiff Steves ...

Read More »

Plaintiff’s “unclean hands” irrelevant to antitrust relief (access required)

Holding that “unclean hands” is not a defense to equitable relief in antitrust, the court excluded the defendant’s evidence that the plaintiff misappropriated its trade secrets, finding such evidence not probative under Federal Rule of Evidence 402. Background Plaintiff Steves ...

Read More »

WDVA: Corrections’ experts not qualified on adequacy of care (access required)

A former inmate asserting he didn’t receive adequate mental health care during his incarceration was successful in seeking to limit trial testimony from certain Department of Corrections experts. Two current Department employees were qualified to opine on whether the plaintiff’s ...

Read More »