Skip to main content
Eighth Circuit· 4/1/1987

Champeau v. Fruehauf Corp.

Citations

  • 814 F.2d 1271
  • 22 Fed. R. Serv. 1380

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that district court prejudiced parties because interfering with their expert’s testimony 145 times “likely confused the jury or led them to believe that the court found appellees’ expert’s testimony incomprehensible”
  • holding there was prejudice when the court interfered with expert testimony 145 times
  • affirming the district court's admission of videotaped experiment not conducted under identical circumstances in part because district court remedied the problem by submitting to the jury a written list of differences and similarities
  • granting a new trial where the trial judge interrupted the trial testimony 145 times, led an expert witness into irrelevant discussions, and “completely confused and perhaps misstated what the expert had said”
  • affirming the district court’s admission of videotaped experiment not conducted under identical circumstances in part because district court remedied the problem by submitting to the jury a written list of differences and similarities
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) does not require court to specify reasons for ruling, but good practice to do so

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Arnold, Henley, McMillian

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.