Paul S. Hammel, Cross-Appellee v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding testimony for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(C)
• employee’s request for co-worker to check his stamping and teach him how to hold the stamp wasn’t a reasonable accommodation under the ADA
• “[T]he ADA . . . does [not] protect an employee who is insubordinate and refuses to obey and accept direct orders from his supervisors.”
• “[The ADA] does [not] protect an employee who is insubordinate and refuses to obey and accept direct orders from his supervisors … .”
• “In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A) & (3), evidence offered ‘solely for impeachment purposes’ does not have to be disclosed prior to trial.”
• “The sanction for failing to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)[ ] is automatic and mandatory exclusion from trial of the non-disclosed evidence under [Rule] 37(c)(1) unless non-disclosure was justified or harmless.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).