Lai v. Sagle

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, in a medical malpractice case, evidence of prior malpractice is inadmissible as irrelevant or excessively prejudicial; Court analogized to the rule barring evidence of prior arrests in a criminal trial
• noting that “[t]he fact of prior litigation has little, if any, relevance to whether [defendant] violated the applicable standard of care in the immediate case.”
• stating that Rule 5-406 “is patterned after the corresponding federal rule”
• com-paring evidence of prior medical malpractice to similar act evidence in criminal trials and surveying cases from other jurisdictions holding that evidence of prior malpractice is either inadmissible as irrelevant or excessively prejudicial
• ‘‘similar acts of prior malpractice litigation should be excluded to prevent a jury from concluding that a doctor has a propensity to commit medical malpractice’’
• “Materiality concerns the fit between the evidence and the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).