Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
November 24, 2021

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,111 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7215 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaning
812310 Coin-Operated Laundries and Drycleaners
economic damages & lost profits
damages, evidence, projections, hearsay
HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.
2021 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7391
US
California
Court of Appeal
Samuel Biggs, CPA
Rubin, P. J.; Baker, J., Kim, J. concurred

Summary

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

See Also

HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.

Full Text of Court Cases
November 24, 2021

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition