Jefferick Majors v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 11 does not conflict with the Georgia frivolous litigation statute and applying the law
• stating that the district court erred when it ruled that a 12 “unit-of-time argument was not allowable under the law” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that testimony concerning billing practices “did not violate the collateral source rule” because the testimony “addressed the reasonableness” of medical expenses and whether such expenses are “reasonable and necessary” is a critical inquiry under Georgia law
• explaining that under Georgia law, which provides the substantive rules for this diversity case, “a tort victim is entitled to recover medical expenses arising from his injuries, including hospital charges, that [are] reasonable and necessary” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).