Skip to main content
· 1/26/1985

Douglas v. Lombardino

Citations

  • 693 P.2d 1138
  • 236 Kan. 471
  • 1985 Kan. LEXIS 272

How courts have described this case

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

  • giving both specialist and general physician instructions could be confusing if there was a dispute whether a doctor was a specialist
  • when a motion in limine is denied, the moving party must object to the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal
  • when a motion in limine is denied, the moving party must object to the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal
  • motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence requires supporting affidavit, deposition, or comparable foundation
  • when a motion in limine is denied, the moving party must object to the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal
  • appellee’s failure to cross-appeal deprived court of jurisdiction to consider appellee’s briefed issues

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schroeder

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.