Mohammed v. Otoadese

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “the erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal ‘unless a substantial right of the party is affected’” (citation omitted)
• “[T]he erroneous admission of evidence does not require reversal ‘unless a substantial right of the party is affected.’” (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.103(a))
• “We review the district court’s determination of relevancy and admission of relevant evidence for an abuse of discretion.”
• “The questioning was brief in the context of a seven day trial.”
• noting evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).