Piekarski v. Club Overlook Estates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• Expert’s report setting forth his “central conclusions” was sufficient to preserve party’s right to examine witness on that subject under Rule 212 because it “enabled [the opposing party] to present an appropriate rebuttal witness to contest this point and other points related to it”
• Expert's report setting forth his \central conclusions\ was sufficient to preserve party's right to examine witness on that subject under Rule 212 because it \enabled [the opposing party] to present an appropriate rebuttal witness to contest this point and other points related to it\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).