White v. Vanderbilt University

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the erroneous exclusion of an expert’s deposition was not harmless, as it prevented the plaintiffs, in a close case, from introducing relevant evidence to support their medical malpractice claim
• “[A] trial court should not exclude evidence under Tenn. R. Evid. 403 when the balance between the probative worth of the evidence and the countervailing factors is fairly debatable.”
• “The erroneous exclusion of evidence will not require reversal of the judgment if the evidence would not have affected the outcome of the trial even if it had been admitted.”
• “If a discretionary decision is within a range of acceptable alternatives, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court simply because we may have chosen a different alternative.”
• “If a discretionary decision is within a range of acceptable alternatives, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court simply because we may have chosen a different alternative.”
• trial court’s evidentiary decisions reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).