EWING

v.

RUNDLE, CORRECTIONAL SUPERINTENDENT

Citator

Cited By

• MCI Commc'ns Corp. & MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir. 1983)
  …led to burden the court with an unending stream of cumulative evidence. United States v. Article of Drug Consisting of 572 Boxes, More or Less, 415 F. 2d 390, 392 (5th Cir.1969); Manbeck v. Ostrowski, 384 F. 2d 970, 973 (D.C.Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 966, 88 S.Ct. 1077, 19 L.Ed.2d 1170 (1968). As Wig-more remarked, “it has never been supposed that a party has an absolute right to force upon an unwilling tribunal an unending and superfluous mass of testimony limited only by his own judgment and whim.…
• Bertell Ollman v. Rowland Evans, 750 F.2d 970 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
  …up to the jury, if it is the trier of fact, to settle any evidentiary disputes over the facts upon which the legal conclusion is to be based. See Manbeck v. Ostrowski, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 5, & n. 20, 384 F. 2d 970, 974 & n. 20 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 966, 88 S.Ct. 1077, 19 L.Ed.2d 1170 (1968) (whether communication is privileged a question of law for court "where the facts surrounding its publication are undisputed”); Morgan v. Dun & Bradstreet, 421 F. 2d 1241, 1242 (5th Cir.1970) (“[wjhen the evide…
• Green Miller, Jr. v. Poretsky, 595 F.2d 780 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
  …ons at the pretrial conference, but representations made at that time should only be reneged upon with great reluctance, usually only to prevent manifest injustice, e. g., Manbeck v. Ostrowski, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 384 F. 2d 970 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 966, 88 S.Ct. 1077, 19 L.Ed.2d 1170 (1968). We find no such justification in this case, and feel that the possible damage the trial court’s unexpected exclusion did to appellant’s case outweighed any reasonable fear of prejudice to the appellees from i…