State Fair of Texas v. United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employees, whose job it was to look for problems which caused an industrial accident, should not have been contacted because those statements would be binding on the defendant corporation
• noting that Opinion 81 explains the rationale behind former N.C. RPC 7.4 (now, RPC 4.2 and 4.3)
• adopting the practice of excluding only the unethically obtained Rule 801(d)(2)(D) admission from trial
• “Employees do not come under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) unless their job function has something to do with the issue at hand.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).