§Why CasetextPricing

Michaud v. Calderone et al

MOTION in Limine to Exclude Testimony or Reference to Speculative Damages

9 Cited authorities

  1. Ortiz-Lopez v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo Y Beneficiencia de Puerto Rico

    248 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2001)   Cited 176 times
    Holding that district courts have broad discretion in meting out Rule 37(c) sanctions for Rule 26 violations

  2. Klonoski v. Mahlab

    156 F.3d 255 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 147 times
    Holding that evidence was not introduced "solely for impeachment purposes" where the evidence was "both impeaching and substantive"

  3. Barbour v. Merrill

    48 F.3d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1995)   Cited 115 times
    Holding that plaintiff met his prima facie case despite lacking one objective qualification sought by the employer because a jury could determine that this criterion was unnecessary

  4. Kelley v. Airborne Freight Corp.

    140 F.3d 335 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 89 times
    Upholding under Massachusetts law a $1 million, fourteen-year front-pay award, a “hotly contested issue at trial,” based on plaintiff's assertion he would work until sixty-five, the six-year proximity to his being fully vested in pension plan, and expert evidence from both sides regarding difficulty finding a better job

  5. Dresser Industries v. Gradall Co.

    965 F.2d 1442 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 66 times
    Holding that defendant had not waived objection to the jury charge by failing to make a Rule 51 motion because it had "devot[ed] three pages . . . in its memorandum opposing" plaintiff's summary judgment motion to the issue and therefore "had reason to believe that it would be pointless to press its theory further"

  6. Eldred v. Consol. Freightways of Delaware

    907 F. Supp. 26 (D. Mass. 1995)   Cited 5 times

    Civ. A. No. 93-30095-MAP. December 8, 1995. Thomas J. Oppenheimer, Springfield, MA, for Plaintiff. Richard U. Stubbs, Jr., Presser, Jay M. Presser and Rosemary J. Nevins, Skoler, Abbott Presser, P.C., Springfield, MA, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM REGARDING DAMAGES AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS AND FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (Docket Nos. 51 52) PONSOR, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In January 1995, this court conducted a bench trial on plaintiff's three-count complaint brought

  7. Fisher v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London

    115 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1940)   Cited 17 times

    No. 7273. November 18, 1940. Rehearing Denied December 10, 1940. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Charles Edgar Woodward, Judge. Action by Ruth P. Fisher against Underwriters at Lloyd's London on alleged insurance contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded. David J. Kadyk and George B. Chapman, 3d, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellant. Norman A. Crawford, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee

  8. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,318 times   656 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 46,025 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness