McCoy v. Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “without further explanation, [the appellant] did not meet its burden under Rule 106” where its counsel did not “specify why the district court should admit the entire report”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).