BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, Appellant in 88-1781 v. ERNST & WHINNEY; BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, v. ERNST & WHINNEY, Appellant in 88-1828

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant waived statute of limitations defense when it raised issue in the answer but failed to attempt to establish this affirmative defense before or at trial
• concluding that, although the defendant raised a statute of limitations defense in its answer, it waived the defense because “it did not file a motion or present argument before the district court on [that] issue at any time before or at the trial”
• finding statute of limitations defense waived when raised in the answer but never pursued until post-trial motions
• auditing firm liable under section 10(b) for misrepresenting its adherence to GAAS
• defendant “did not file a motion or present argument before the district court on the statute of limitations issue at any time before or at the trial”
• “[I]t would be grossly unfair to allow a plaintiff to go to the expense of trying a case only to be met by a new defense after trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).