State v. Devdan Yearwood-Cabbel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that agency relationship was demonstrated by the fact that alleged agent answered the phone at employer’s business
• defining “bid rigging” as “[a]ny agreement between competitors pursuant to which contract offers are to be submitted to or withheld from a third party”
• applying the present sense impressions exception to allow admission of summary of telephone conversation
• circumstantial evidence that unidentified person answering the phone was secretary authorized to relay message of employer sufficiently established scope of agency
• “Any agreement between competitors pursuant to which contract offers are submitted to or withheld from a third party constitutes bid rigging per se.”
• court had properly excluded opinions offered by plaintiff’s damages expert as “unhelpful” where opinions were the result of “basic calculations” and did not require the application of specialized knowledge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).