Gilbert Jarrard v. Cdi Telecommunications, Inc. And Crawford & Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that underdeveloped arguments were forfeited on appeal because the litigant's briefs lacked \citation to relevant authority or meaningful argument\
• holding that an appellant who “failed to develop [an argument] in the district court (or here for that Berndsen was never questioned in those prior proceedings about what he did with the shirt or why he did not take it into evidence. No. 18-1741 Page 10 matter
• holding that an appellant who “failed to develop [an argument] in the district court (or here for that Berndsen was never questioned in those prior proceedings about what he did with the shirt or why he did not take it into evidence. No. 18-1741 Page 10 matter
• holding that an appellant who “failed to develop [an argument] in the district court (or here for that Berndsen was never questioned in those prior proceedings about what he did with the shirt or why he did not take it into evidence. No. 18-1741 Page 10 matter
• refusing to apply judicial estoppel because Defendant \could not have argued their prior position without running afoul of controlling Indiana caselaw\
• explaining, “the doctrine aims to prevent a party that prevails in one lawsuit on one ground from repudiating that same ground in another lawsuit”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).