Douglas R. Tenbarge, Lilly Tenbarge v. Ames Taping Tool Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial testimony by a medical expert was unfairly prejudicial because it contradicted the expert’s admissions at deposition
• A new trial was warranted because the trial testimony of defendant’s expert contrasted sharply with his deposition testimony, and defendant did not supplement. Defendant clearly had a duty under Rule 26(e) to inform plaintiff of any changes or additions to the expert’s testimony.
• discussing this requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).