Johnsson v. Virginia

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that information about other lawsuits would have been probative (and possibly admissible) had there been a “clear nexus between these lawsuits and this case”
• including the additional factor that the evidence must be “similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter at issue”
• articulating four-step test, including that “the other act must be similar enough and close enough in time to be relevant to the matter at issue”
• affirming district court’s finding that evidence of other discrimination lawsuits against defendant-employer was irrelevant “because there was no clear nexus between these lawsuits and this case”
• affirming district court's exclusion of evidence of prior litigation filed against the defendant under Rule 404(b) because it was not relevant, there was no nexus to the current litigation, and there was a potential for prejudice
• the potential prejudice of introducing evidence of other specific past employment discrimination lawsuits filed against defendant would have outweighed its probative value, as it would have the effect of misleading the jury as to the issues in the pending matter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).