Chick v. Mercantile Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substitute “opinion should not stray from the subject matter of [the original] opinion. To the extent that [replacement expert] covers new material in his deposition, Defendant may file a motion to exclude that portion of [the] opinion”
• granting subject matter so long as the “opinion [does] not stray from the subject matter” of the previous opinion
• “Assuming there is no ‘meaningful change in testimony,’ Defendant will suffer little prejudice.” (internal citation omitted)
• allowing Plaintiff to replace her expert thirty days prior to trial and rejecting Defendant’s argument that it would be prejudicial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).