Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that misconduct under Rule 60(B)(3) “can include both negligent and intentional violations of Indiana’s discovery rules”
• holding wire fraud conviction was admissible under Evidence Rule 609 “because misrepresentation is an element of the crime”
• noting, “[t]he purpose of the [work product] privilege is to protect the mental impressions and legal theories of attorneys and their clients”
• denying defendants’ request for sanctions against plaintiffs where conduct was attributable only to counsel, but withholding judgment on possible future sanctions against offending counsel
• denying defendants' request for sanctions against plaintiffs where con- duct was attributable only to counsel, but withholding judgment on possible future sanctions against offending counsel
• listing factors to determine misconduct under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).