in Re David John Guardiola

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a court must “consider whether a limited purpose is inseparable from one foreclosed under Rule 408(a)”
• vacating and remanding for a new trial where evidentiary error harmed the defendants—despite other evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim—because of its likelihood of swaying the jury’s consideration of the evidence and determination of damages
• interpreting movant’s request to strike double recovery damages as arising under Rule 59(e)
• “because the district court found that the Compromise Statements were admissible without limitation, the court allowed them to be used for one of the very purposes foreclosed [under Rule 408]: to prove the validity of the claim that ‘the compromise offer was meant to settle’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).