Donna Cisson v. C. R. Bard, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that document did not fall under 803(17) because it bore “no resemblance to the factual list-type documents enumerated in Rule 803(17)”
• holding that Judge Goodwin did not abuse his discretion by excluding evidence that Bard had complied with the § 510(k) process for its transvaginal mesh device
• explaining that in a diversity case, federal courts apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
• subjecting jury to hours or days of complex testimony about regulatory investigation could lead jurors to erroneously infer the product was safe
• reviewing the expert evidence presented by the plaintiff as to the design defects, including the testimony of Dr. Lennox Hoyte
• reviewing the expert evidence presented by the plaintiff as to the design defects, including the testimony of Dr. Lennox Hoyte

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).