Genna v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court properly allowed the testimony of the plaintiff about the value of the contents of his home
• concluding that the plaintiff “would have been aware of the value of those items, because they were his belongings and he knew how much he paid for them.”
• declining to find that “direct expert testimony is required to establish the causal link, not inferences”
• to lay proper foundation to refresh witness’s recollection, proponent must first show that the witness’s present memory is inadequate
• “[E]rror requiring reversal cannot be error to which the aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence.”
• “[E]rror requiring reversal cannot be error to which the aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).