Muhammad v. Toys\ R\ US, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \irrelevant familial rhetoric must not be condoned\
• observing that \irrelevant familial rhetoric must not be condoned\
• reversing and remanding for new trial where counsel’s arguments suggesting a settlement with others were “patently prejudicial and may have influenced the jury to return a verdict in favor of Toys ‘R’ Us”
• reversing and remanding for new trial where counsel's arguments suggesting a settlement with others were \patently prejudicial and may have influenced the jury to return a verdict in favor of Toys `R' Us\
• collective import of counsel's improper arguments required a new trial even though some objections were sustained
• an attorney's expression of his personal opinion as to the credibility of a witness, or of his personal knowledge of facts, is fundamentally improper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).