Jack Belton and John Crochet v. Fibreboard Corporation, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the admission of evidence regarding the fact of settlement by co-defendants “for the purpose of explaining why those parties were not in court”
• disclosure of the fact of settlement did not violate Rule 408 because it was offered to reduce jury confusion but disclosure of the settlement amount did not fall under any exception to Rule 408
• disclosure of the fact of settlement did not violate Rule 408 because it was offered to reduce jury confusion but disclosure of the settlement amount did not fall under any exception to Rule 408
• construing Fed. R. Evid. 408

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).