Downeast Ventures, Ltd. v. Washington County

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that lay witnesses whose job experience gives them specialized knowledge can testify about the value or projected profits of a business
• explaining Rule 701 allows testimony from witnesses whose particularized knowledge and expertise comes from their business experience
• explaining Rule 701 allows testimony from witnesses whose particularized knowledge and expertise comes from their business experience
• finding plaintiffs’ late disclosure of expert harmless when defendants had time before trial to depose that expert and to designate any opposing experts
• “Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the primary limitation on the valuation testimony of a corporate employee is foundational; Rule 701 permits a witness to testify to his opinion to the extent it is ‘rationally based’ on his perceptions . . . .” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 701)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Morel v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp.
  D. Puerto Rico· 2009-06-15· cited 28×
• Griffith v. Eastern Maine Medical Center
  D. Maine· 2009-02-28· cited 3×
• Morin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
  D. Maine· 2006-09-19· cited 1×
• D’Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc. v. P Sweetwater Sound, Inc.
  D. New Hampshire· 2020-10-14· cited 1×
• Coldwell Banker v. Brian Moses
  D. New Hampshire· 2010-09-08

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• United States v. Maher
  First Circuit· 2006-07-06· cited 140×
• Macaulay v. Anas
  First Circuit· 2003-02-28· cited 125×
• Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2003-02-05· cited 106×
• Santiago-Díaz v. Laboratorio Clínico Y De Referencia Del Este
  First Circuit· 2006-08-08· cited 93×
• United States v. Ayala-Pizarro
  First Circuit· 2005-05-12· cited 63×
• Dehahn v. Innes
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1976-04-22· cited 62×
• Ruby Conway v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, Intervenor-Appellee
  Fifth Circuit· 1976-10-18· cited 54×
• DiPietro v. Boynton
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1993-07-20· cited 46×
• Fitzgerald v. Expressway Sewerage Constraction, Inc.
  First Circuit· 1999-05-27· cited 45×
• State Ex Rel. Smith v. Livingston Limestone Co.
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1977-03-14· cited 37×
• Laplace-Bayard v. Huerta
  First Circuit· 2002-07-16· cited 32×
• Primus v. United States
  First Circuit· 2004-11-17· cited 27×
• M. A. Realty Co. v. State Roads Commission
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1967-10-09· cited 25×
• Kleinschmidt v. Morrow
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1994-05-18· cited 16×
• Simmons v. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1967-10-27· cited 11×
• Krolikowski v. University of Massachusetts
  D. Massachusetts· 2001-06-18· cited 11×
• MOBIL OIL CORPORATION v. City of Wichita Falls
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1972-12-15· cited 10×
• Pasternak v. Achorn
  D. Maine· 1988-02-25· cited 7×
• Falconer v. Penn Maritime, Inc.
  D. Maine· 2006-03-10· cited 6×
• Ferrara & DiMercurio v. St. Paul Mercury
  First Circuit· 2001-08-01· cited 3×