Frost v. Carse

How courts have described this case

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

• looking to \Georgia cases decided under the former version of [the] rule ... for guidance\ only after explicitly noting the rule had \no federal counterpart.\
• collecting cases and reasoning the federal courts agree a party’s wealth is generally inadmissible unless directly relevant to an issue in the case
• characterizing Georgia’s party-wealth rule as a “rule of relevance” and reasoning Federal Rules 402 ad 403 applied rather than the common law rule
• looking to “Georgia cases decided under the former version of [the] rule . . . for guidance” only after explicitly noting the rule had “no federal counterpart”
• explaining that an objection to evidence at trial on the ground * that it was not relevant is not the same as an objection that the evidence should have been excluded for unfair prejudice under Rule 403, and that the latter issue therefore could be analyzed only for plain error
• explaining that an objection to evidence at trial on the ground that it was not relevant is not the same as an objection that the evidence should have been excluded for unfair prejudice under Rule 403, and that the latter issue therefore could be analyzed only for plain error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).