Svege v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding bifurcation inappropriate where jurors would inevitably learn during liability phase that father had died and two children had been injured in accident
• denying request for bifurcation where claimed prejudice was unclear to the court
• denying request to bifurcate where the defendants argued that they would be prejudiced by “evidence regarding the injuries and orphaning of . . . two minor children” because “whether the Court bifurcates the issues or not, the jury will learn . . . that . . . two children were injured”
• denying request to bifurcate where the defendants argued that they would be prejudiced by “evidence regarding the injuries and orphaning of . . . two minor children” because “whether the Court bifurcates the issues or not, the jury will learn . . . that . . . two children were injured”
• “Yet, the issues of liability and damages are routinely tried, even in cases of death or severe injury.”
• “[t]he [c]ourt certainly appreciates [defendants’ confidence on the eve of trial[;] [h]owever, without expressing any view on the ultimate outcome of this trial, it suffices to say -that [defendants’ projected savings are by no means guaranteed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).