Maddox v. Stone

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, where there has been “substantial compliance” with the deadlines in a scheduling order, it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude the witness
• holding that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony
• holding trial court erred in striking an expert, whose report had been given to defendants a month late, because the court failed to “t[ake] into consideration any factors such as those identified in Taliaferro” (emphasis added)
• stating that “the more draconian sanctions[ ] of dismissing a claim or precluding the evidence necessary to support a elaim[] are normally reserved for persistent and deliberate violations that actually cause some prejudice, either to a party or to the court.”
• noting that we “will reverse a decision that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge if we are unable to discern from the record that there was an analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances that resulted in the exercise of discretion.”
• “[T]he record must reflect that the judge exercised discretion and did not simply apply some predetermined position.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).