Hirst v. Inverness Hotel Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that president of a security company’s lay opinion of hotel’s security measures was inadmissible because it was not based on firsthand knowledge of that location
• An argument is preserved for appeal when the objection provides the court “with sufficient notice of the bases for the objection and an opportunity to correct the alleged error.”
• “[A] party simply may not use Rule 701 as an end-run around the reliability requirements of Rule 702 . . . Preventing such attempts is the very purpose of subsection (c).”
• Rule 701(c) was added to “eliminate the risk that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702 will be evaded through the simple expedient of proffering an expert in lay witness clothing ... by simply calling an expert witness in the guise of a layperson.”
• “As the Sixth Circuit has recognized, ‘seldom will be the case when a lay opinion on an ultimate issue will meet the test of being helpful to the trier of fact since the jury’s opinion is as good as the witness’ and the witness turns into little more than an ‘oath helper.’””

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).