Hamann v. Ridge Tool Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that court’s view that “[w]hether the evidence was destroyed or lost accidently or in bad faith is irrelevant, because the opposing party suffered the same prejudice”
• “[w]hether the evidence was destroyed or lost accidentally or in bad faith is irrelevant, because the opposing party suffered the same prejudice”
• “Whether the evidence was destroyed or lost accidentally or in bad faith is irrelevant, because the opposing party suffered the same prejudice[.]”
• “[w]hether the evidence was destroyed or lost accidentally or in bad faith is irrelevant, because the opposing party suffered the same prejudice”
• “[w]hether the evidence was destroyed or lost accidentally or in bad faith is irrelevant, because the opposing party suffered the same prejudice”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).