Hantsbarger v. Coffin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant leave to allow the testimony where the “[d]efendant was not prejudiced” and the “plaintiffs were ready with their experts”
• holding it is appropriate to consider an aggrieved party’s lack of action in deciding whether to impose sanctions for failure to comply with disclosure requirements
• noting “we do not suggest that opposing counsel must act as his or her ‘brother’s keeper’”
• finding abuse of discretion in denial of extension request where “a complete designation was only delinquent for about one week”
• rejecting a suggestion “that opposing counsel must act as his or her ‘brother’s keeper’”
• finding literal compliance with Iowa Code section 668.11 on expert disclosure was not required

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).