Malek v. Federal Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that district court erred in sequestering expert witness whose presence was necessary to assist counsel in preparing cross examination
• excluding expert contributed to prejudice when expert given only 10 minutes to review relevant trial transcripts
• reversing judgment because “[a]lthough each of the erroneous evidentiary rulings ..., standing alone, may be insufficient to justify reversal, we cannot say that the cumulative effect is harmless”
• reversing judgment because “[a]lthough each of the erroneous evidentiary rulings . . . , standing alone, may be insufficient to justify reversal, we cannot say that the cumulative effect is harmless”
• reversing judgment because “[a]lthough each of the erroneous evidentiary rulings ..., standing alone, may be insufficient to justify reversal, we cannot say that the cumulative effect is harmless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).