United States v. Hollcraft

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the “prejudice caused by [a party’s] waiting [to disclose a witness] until after the close of discovery” and after a motion for summary judgment had been filed
• “[T]he vague evidence offered by Haas on this element is insufficient to reasonably justify a conclusion that D&H knew or should have known about a problem with the switch”
• “That [the employee] found the switch difficult to throw does not provide a reasonable basis for a jury to find that [defendant] breached its duty to provide him with a safe workplace.”
• “Although the late discovery of [a possible witness] was apparently due to plaintiff’s counsel’s neglect and not ‘bad faith,’ bad faith is not required and counsel has offered no adequate explanation for this untimely disclosure.”
• “Now, any little things we work with them on, there is not a quick response. They take forever to get back. It’s more of a cold relationship, even though there still is some sort of a relationship. It’s been affected tremendously.”
• excluding plaintiff’s affidavit where plaintiff failed to timely identify affiant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).