Jones v. Hatchett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that providing the name of the expert four days before trial was not sufficient to discharge the duty required by Rule 26 because \[t]he very purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent such trial by ambush\
• holding that providing the name of the expert four days before trial was not sufficient to discharge the duty required by Rule 26 because \[t]he very purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent such trial by ambush\
• stating purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent trial by ambush
• stating purpose of our civil discovery procedures is to prevent trial by ambush
• trial court erred in allowing expert doctor to testify when his name had been revealed four days before trial, and no information was provided on the subject matter of his testimony
• negligent operation of a motor vehicle

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).