Babcock v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that reversal for plain error in the civil context requires that “(1) there be error; (2) the error was ‘plain’ (i.e.[,] obvious and clear under current law); (3) the error affected substantial rights; and (4) the error threatened a miscarriage of justice”
• holding that testimony pertaining to plaintiff’s seatbelt use was admissible
• recognizing that reversal for plain error in the civil context requires that “(1) there be error; (2) the error was ‘plain’ (i.e.[,] obvious and clear under current law); (3) the error affected substantial rights; and (4) the error threatened a miscarriage of justice”
• noting that, “[a]lthough the Verdict Form is entitled ‘Special Verdict Form,’ it seems clear that it was not a true ‘special verdict,’ as described in Rule 49(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure” because it contained no questions regarding specific findings of fact
• applying plain error review to unpreserved inconsistent verdict claim deemed forfeited
• applying plain error review to unpreserved inconsistent verdict claim deemed forfeited

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).