Jarke v. Jackson Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• trial court’s ruling under Rule 220 should not be disturbed without clear showing of abuse of discretion
• trial court's ruling under Rule 220 should not be disturbed without clear showing of abuse of discretion
• expert’s use of different terms at trial compared to those used in deposition to describe dangerous product feature in product liability suit did not render expert’s testimony inconsistent in violation of Rule 220
• expert's use of different terms at trial compared to those used in deposition to describe dangerous product feature in product liability suit did not render expert's testimony inconsistent in violation of Rule 220
• an expert’s opinion cannot be based on mere conjecture or guess
• despite the defense counsel’s failure to contemporaneously object to witness testimony, the issue was sufficiently preserved where the defendant filed a pretrial motion in limine and the defense counsel made a belated objection to the testimony during the course of trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).