Lorri Nolan v. Ronald W Chapman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that excluding evidence of additional interior damage did not prejudice plaintiff because jury rejected claim “to any interior damage whatsoever”
• noting that chase refers to channel cut into walls to accommodate services
• affirming district court’s imposition of sanctions when “[t]he district court considered the [four factors], though not in rote fashion as [appellant] argues it should have done”
• appellant was not prejudiced by exclusion of evidence, as other evidence relating to matter was admitted, and she could have called witness to adduce excluded evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).