Wilson v. Muckala

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “the inclusion in a claim in the pretrial order is deemed to amend any previous pleadings which did not include that claim”
• holding that grant of summary judgment, even if erroneous, was harmless in light of later determinations by jury
• holding that the trial court properly refused to allow amendment of complaint to add quid pro quo harassment where the harasser lacked “actual or apparent authority over” the plaintiff
• noting that the preparation of a pretrial order “requires careful attention and review by the parties and their attorneys” because the pretrial order “is treated as superseding the pleadings”
• explaining that “the pretrial order is the controlling document for trial[,]” and, “[a]s such, claims, issues, defenses, or theories of damages not included in the pretrial order are waived” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that “the pretrial order is the controlling document for trial[,]” and, “[a]s such, claims, issues, defenses, or theories of damages not included in the pretrial order are waived” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).