James River Ins. Co. v. Rapid Funding, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a calculation involving depreciation is improper lay testimony, because “[tjechnieal judgment is required in choosing among different types of depreciation.”
• recognizing that under the Federal Rules of Evidence and Colorado common law a landowner may testify to the value of their property
• concluding that an officer’s valuation at trial was inadmissible lay testimony because it “require[d] more than applying basic mathematics” and instead required “technical judgment”
• holding that the district court abused its discretion in admitting as a lay opinion testimony, what was actually expert opinion testimony “based on technical or specialized knowledge”
• holding error to admit expert opinions of a lay witness absent compliance with Rule 702
• noting that, under the binding precedent of Foster, “the district judge erred in applying the more lenient ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).