§Why CasetextPricing

Hunt Construction Group v. Cobb Mechanical Contractors, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion

6 Cited authorities

  1. Hamburger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    361 F.3d 875 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 306 times
    Holding that an insurer's finding that $16,039.10 was adequate compensation for pain and suffering was not “bad faith per se” and that summary judgment was appropriate even though a jury awarded the insured $50,000 for pain and suffering

  2. Anderson v. Bristol, Inc.

    936 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (S.D. Iowa 2013)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Rule 26(C) requires more than stating witness's connection to case or reference to medical records, absent summary of witness's expected testimony

  3. Tolan v. Cotton

    CIVIL ACTION H-09-1324 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 14, 2015)   Cited 20 times
    In Tolan v. Cotton, No. H-09-1324, 2015 WL 5332171 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 14, 2015), the court concluded that a witness is "retained" if he was hired to provide expert opinion and testimony in exchange for a fee, while a witness is "specially employed" if he has no personal involvement in the facts giving rise to a case but is used by a party to provide opinions and testimony bearing on the particulars of a case, without monetary payment for those services.

  4. Knighton v. Lawrence

    Civil Action No. SA-14-CV-718-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2016)   Cited 7 times

    Civil Action No. SA-14-CV-718-XR 08-09-2016 JARED LOUIS KNIGHTON, Plaintiff, v. AVERY LAWRENCE, Defendant. XAVIER RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER On this date, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Defendant's Expert Witnesses. Docket no. 41. Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant Lawrence's designation of twenty-nine "non-retained experts/medical service providers" employed by University Health System for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).

  5. Carr v. Montgomery Cnty.

    CIVIL ACTION H-13-2795 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION H-13-2795 10-07-2015 PERLA CARR, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants. Gray H. Miller United States District Judge ORDER Pending before the court are (1) Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's medical experts (Dkt. 51) and (2) Defendants' motion to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiff's purported expert Roger Clark (Dkt. 66). Having considered the motions, responses, and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that Defendants' motion

  6. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,850 times   319 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness