Vivian Sprynczynatyk and Paul Sprynczynatyk, Appellees/cross-Appellants v. General Motors Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in general questions of admissibility of evidence are governed by federal law in cases where state substantive law applies
• holding that motion in limine preserved objection to post-hypnosis recollection and noting that “[i]t was not a typical motion in limine situation where a hypothetical question is posed whose nature and relevance is unclear before trial”
• “The district court’s denial of the motion was not made conditionally or with the suggestion that the matter would be reconsidered.”
• objection at trial after denial of motion in limine not necessary to preserve error for appellate review because specific evidentiary matter was fully briefed and argued and district court implicitly denied request for preliminary hearing on the issue
• trial court refused to adopt defendants’ proffered limiting instruction
• noting the matter was fully briefed and argued

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).