Schultz v. Richie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the expert’s testimony was irrelevant and could not have been corrected at the time of his deposition, defendants’ subsequent objections at trial to the relevancy of his testimony were not waived
• objection to “the competency of the deponent and [the] relevancy of the subject matter of the testimony in whole” was not waived under Rule 211
• objection to \the competency of the deponent and [the] relevancy of the subject matter of the testimony in whole\ was not waived under Rule 211
• objection to \the competency of the deponent and [the] relevancy of the subject matter of the testimony in whole\ was not waived under Rule 211

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).