Howard Jay Josephs v. Harris Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was an abuse of discretion to restrict plaintiffs' ability to address on redirect examination the impression left by cross-examination that plaintiffs' expert had no support for his opinion
• explaining that a party's objections must “show specifically how each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive” (cleaned up)
• explaining that a party’s objections must “show specifically how each interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive” (internal quotations and alterations omitted)
• observing that “the information requested was patently relevant to the issue[s]” in that case
• observing that “the information requested was patently relevant to the issue[s]” in that case
• observing that “the information requested was patently relevant to the issue[s]” in that case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).