Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that data gathered four years after a flood could be excluded as irrelevant where it was too remote
• holding evidence could properly be excluded as irrelevant under I.R.E. 401 as too remote in time
• “No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence is grounds for granting a new trial ... unless refusal to take such action appears to the court to be inconsistent with substantial justice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).