Rogers v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 380·922 F.2d 1426·31 Fed. R. Serv. 1231·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 150·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 319
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 9, 199189-15066California3,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

922 F.2d 1426 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1231 Hester M. ROGERS, individually and as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Clinton W. Rogers, decedent, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants, and Fibreboard Corporation and Keene Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-15066. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 1990. Decided Jan. 9, 1991. Gloria J. Husick, Carlson & Husick, Dublin, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Steven M. Garrett and Kelly C. Wooster, Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee Fibreboard Corp. Larry C. Lowe, Morgenstein & Jubelirer, San Francisco, Cal. (argued case for defendant-appellee Keene Corp.) and J. Lawrence Judy, Shield & Smith, San Francisco, Cal. (signed the briefs), for defendant-appellee Keene Corp. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, BROWNING and RYMER, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 This is an asbestos case. The appeal raises questions about the extent of a trial judge's discretion to exclude expert and percipient witness opinion testimony under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.