United States v. Cantu-Osornio

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing application of Fed. R. Evid. 411 to admissibility of indemnification agreement in consideration of punitive damages
• rejecting the holding in Larez on the ground that the court’s reasoning overlooks the fact that consideration of a defendant’s wealth, while irrelevant to compensatory damages, is “integral” in the realm of punitive damages
• “[Rule 50(b)] necessarily requires the party to have made an initial motion prior to the time that the court submits the case to the jury.”
• Rule 50(b) motion was properly preserved where a less detailed Rule 50(a) motion set forth the same basic facts, thus providing adequate notice of perceived deficiencies
• Rule 50(b) motion was properly preserved where a less detailed Rule 50(a) motion set forth the same basic facts, thus providing adequate notice of perceived deficiencies
• “It might be the case that Plaintiffs were not entitled to introduce evidence concerning the Defendants’ financial condition until Defendants put their own financial condition at issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).