James v. Carawan

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that exclusion of surveillance video affected defendant’s “substantial right to present his defense” and thus constituted reversible error
• holding that exclusion of surveillance video affected defendant’s “substantial right to present his defense” and thus constituted reversible error
• holding that exclusion of surveillance video affected defendant's \substantial right to present his defense\ and thus constituted reversible error
• “Aside from its damaging effect to [plaintiff’s] case, we are unable to determine how [admission of video surveillance evidence] would unfairly prejudice [plaintiff].”
• harmful error in excluding video of personal-injury plaintiff riding roller coaster because video could have called into question work abilities and extent of pain and \might [have] shed doubt upon the merits of Carawan's case as a whole\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).