Bambu v. EI Dupont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an adverse inference instruction “invaded the province of the jury” where the trial court specifically instructed the jury that the defendant had destroyed the results of certain tests
• finding Valcin inapplicable where defendants’ ability to establish a prima facie case was not hindered by the loss of the documentation
• noting that “where evidence necessary to prove a prima facie case is missing due to actions of a party, an essential element of a claim may be presumed” (citing Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla 1987))
• noting that “where evidence necessary to prove a prima facie case is missing due to actions of a party, an essential element of a claim may be presumed” (citing Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cty. v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596, 599 (Fla 1987))
• affirming directed verdict in part “because the nurseries failed to establish causation”
• “[T]he option of applying such an inference should have been limited to the arguments of counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).