Cavanaugh v. Tatum

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that a review of the Wikipedia website “reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers”
• finding that the concept of “fundamental fairness” incorporated into Vaccine Rule 3(b) “surely entails notice and an effective opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”
• finding that a special master committed reversable error in relying on information, not submitted by the parties, from Wikipedia and other websites which contained reliability disclaimers
• explaining that, “like any norm based upon common sense and experience, this rule should not be treated as an absolute and must yield where the factual predicates for its application are weak or lacking”
• finding that the concept of “fundamental fairness” incorporated into Vaccine Rule 3(b
• noting the efficacy of holding a hearing in cases where testimony and medical records conflict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).