Lundquist v. Nickels

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an interrogatory was improper because it failed to refer specifically to plaintiff's \comparative\ negligence
• the jury’s viewing of property involved in the litigation “does not constitute evidence, but is merely a device to facilitate the jury’s understanding and application of the evidence to the issues presented at trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).