Arthur Doty v. Richard Sewall, Arthur Doty v. Richard Sewall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding pretrial motion in limine insufficient to preserve issue for appeal where district court declined to rule on admissibility of evidence until evidence was actually offered
• stating that issues<br>regarding twelve items of impermissible argument or evidence were<br>not properly preserved for appeal due to the failure to object, but<br>still allowing review upon a showing of \substantial injustice\
• noting that failure to bring issue underly- ing new trial claim to district court's attention is significant because \'[b]y doing so . . . [the party] got a chance to see the verdict and then to seek to overturn it.'\
• “[Ejxamination of the special verdict form makes it clear that damages for the two claims were provided generally, and were not segregated into separate federal and state components.”
• exhaustion not required because union procedures could not provide complete relief to union member because procedures did not allow for damages to an aggrieved member
• “[W]here, as here, the claims under federal and state law, and the damages awarded therefore, are identical, a plaintiff is entitled to select the body of law under which the damages will be paid.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).