§Why CasetextPricing

Yates v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Inc., et al

Memorandum in Support regarding 305 MOTION in Limine to Exclude VA Compensation Packet

11 Cited authorities

  1. Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

    782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 329 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding documents gathered by Sumner Simpson, a former president of Raybestos Manhattan (now Raymark)

  2. Williams v. the Nashville Network and Gaylord

    132 F.3d 1123 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that the fact-finder might view the employer's explanation as pretextual when the employer's proffered reason for hiring another candidate was not a listed job requirement

  3. Sloas v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    616 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2010)   Cited 86 times
    Providing abuse of discretion standard for review of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) denial of motion to reconsider

  4. E.E.O.C. v. Manville Sales Corp.

    27 F.3d 1089 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 119 times
    Holding that age-focused statements by a supervisor directed at the plaintiff over a four-year period "may indicate a pattern of discriminatory comments and as such are directly relevant to showing the existence of discriminatory motive"

  5. Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

    69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1995)   Cited 72 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the focus of N.C.G.S. § 99B-4 is not on a plaintiff's "use of the product" per se; rather, the focus is on whether a plaintiff "failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in the use of the product"

  6. Cates v. Wilson

    321 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1987)   Cited 48 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Medicaid benefits, checks received pursuant to the "Aid for Dependent Children" program, and child support payments constituted collateral sources

  7. Badgett v. Davis

    104 N.C. App. 760 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 8 times

    No. 9115SC133 Filed 17 December 1991 1. Damages 53 (NCI4th) — collateral source rule The collateral source rule excludes evidence of payments made to the plaintiff by sources other than the defendant when this evidence is offered for the purpose of diminishing the defendant tortfeasor's liability to the injured plaintiff. Am Jur 2d, Damages 566. 2. Damages 53 (NCI4th) — collateral source rule — Medicare payments — admission on court's own motion Plaintiff was prejudiced by the trial court's violation

  8. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 22,660 times   81 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

  9. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,499 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

  10. Rule 402 - General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 402   Cited 6,706 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing relevant evidence is admissible unless prohibited by the United States Constitution, a federal statute, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court

  11. Section 8C-1 - Rules of Evidence

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1   Cited 3,483 times

    The North Carolina Rules of Evidence are as follows: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1