Rodriguez v. Clarke

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court “has repeatedly recognized that ‘expert testimony is required to establish negligence and causation.’”
• noting that this Court reviews the circuit court’s discovery sanctions under an abuse of discretion standard
• noting the nature and scope of the particular duty must generally be defined by expert testimony
• interpreting the rules to require parties to “put forth good faith efforts to obtain and provide access to information needed to proceed to trial”
• If expert testimony regarding negligence and causation is lacking, “the court may rule…that there is not sufficient evidence to go [to] the jury.” (citation omitted)
• “The Clarkes’ preterition reflected by their sparse expert witness designation, elusive answers to interrogatories, and failure to communicate, warrant preclusion of their experts — the sanctions were proportionate to the discovery abuse”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).