Dorsey v. Nold

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a doctor was an expert witness rather than a fact witness where, in his testimony, he gave an opinion on the medical cause of a death
• explaining that the purpose of scheduling orders is simply to facilitate discovery, and “move the case efficiently through the litigation process by setting specific dates or time limits for anticipated litigation events to occur”
• “Just as there are sanctions for the violation of the discovery rales, sanctions are available for the violation of directives in scheduling orders, although they are not specified in any rule.” (Citation omitted)
• “[T]he general rule is that ‘a physician’s inability to pass a medical board certification exam has little, if any, relevance to the issue of whether the physician complied with the standard of care required in his or her treatment of a patient.’ ” (quoting Gipson, 724 So.2d at 531-32)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).