Mister v. Northeast Illinois Commuter RR Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a report made by the defendant employer’s safety officer concerning the plaintiff employee’s fall, in which other employees were interviewed about the fall, was admissible under 801(d)(2)(D
• “After statements are classified as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), ‘the question remains whether there are other objections.’”
• “After statements are classified as non-hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(D), ‘the question remains whether there are other objections.’”
• “The district court erred when it did not classify the [investigative] report as an admission by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)(D)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).