Total Containment, Inc. v. Dayco Products, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating a party at its original trial “omits evidence necessary to sustain its damage award at its peril”
• rejecting argument for excluding evidence pursuant to Rule 37 and explaining that “to the extent Dayco feels that it will be prejudiced by the short time left for discovery, it may file any appropriate motions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).