Wortman v. Donahoe (In Re Donahoe)

How courts have described this case

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

• saying that the evidence at issue in that case was admissible because it was offered “as direct proof of the underlying substance of the disputed issue ... not indirect proof that Plaintiff knows he must be liable because he made such an offer”
• “Rule 408 bars the admission of evidence only when the evidence is offered to show the following inference: that because a settlement offer was made, the offeror must be liable, because people don’t offer to pay for things for which they are not liable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).