Lynda Sue Hancock v. Richard M. Hobbs, City of Marietta

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it “would be impractical to apply two different rules of privi- lege to the same evidence before a single jury”
• noting “it would be impractical to apply two different rules of privilege to the same evidence before a single jury”
• finding no abuse of discretion where district court excluded expert testimony because party advancing testimony did not comply with Rule 26(e)(1)
• “[T]he federal law of privilege provides the rule of decision in a civil proceeding where the court’s jurisdiction is premised upon a federal question, even if the witness-testimony is relevant to a pendent state law count which may be controlled by a contrary state law of privilege.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).