EEOC v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when a defendant puts his mental state at issue by arguing “mere presence,” evidence of other bad acts is admissible to prove knowledge and intent
• explaining that even if the district court had erred by allowing testimony regarding the defendant’s prior bad acts, it was harmless because “the government presented ample evidence of Harry’s intent to distribute”
• “Considering the strength of the government’s case, the district court’s alleged evidentiary error [in admitting evidence of defendant’s prior acts] would have been harmless.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).