Skip to main content
· 6/30/1954

Conning v. Busey

Citations

  • 127 F. Supp. 958
  • 47 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 109
  • 1954 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2433

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that the preclusion of testimony is “a drastic remedy and should only be applied in ... rare cases”
  • finding that disclosure of experts on the eve of the expiration of the discovery period was untimely because it was not sufficiently early enough to permit the opposing side to complete any additional discovery the new disclosure prompted
  • the court may consider whether [the plaintiff’s] “failure to prepare in a timely and diligent manner was a product of bad faith” when deciding whether to preclude evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cecil

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.