Ventra v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an affirmation would “not be considered on th[e] motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to disclose the witness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)”
• finding that plaintiff did not suffer from a serious injury when “there [was] no objective evidence of a significant limitation” and “limitation[s] in [plaintiff’s] range of motion . . . were based on her subjective responses rather than objective criteria”
• discounting the importance of the results of an active range of motion test, as compared to a passive test
• Rule 37(c)(1) is “designed to avoid ... gamesmanship ... [and] to provide a strong inducement for disclosure of Rule 26(a) material.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).