Williams v Anderson et al.

Williams field an interlocutory appeal arguing the district court erred in granting Anderson’s motion in limine baring evidence of damages arguing he had adequately disclosed the basis for calculating his damages. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that Williams’ disclosure that he claimed 30% of the sale price of the company he owned with Anderson was sufficient to satisfy Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1()(C) as Anderson knew the sale price and could calculate the amount claimed, Williams’ assertion that he was owed additional amounts did not change the adequacy of the disclosure as to the sale proceeds and the federal cases relied upon by Anderson were distinguishable.

State v Taylor

Taylor appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court did not commit clear error in ruling probable cause existed to stop Taylor as the stopping officer testified he saw Taylor’s passenger car stay less than a car’s length behind the vehicle in front of him for between a quarter and a half mile, that Taylor’s argument the request to search Taylor’s car unlawfully extended the stop was unsupported by citations to the record as Taylor consented to the search of his car before the records search was completed, and Taylor failed to point to any prejudice in his trial attorney’s failure to ask certain lines of questions or concession the state’s view of the law was correct.

State v Phillips

Phillips appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed holding the district court considered the required factors and its decision to run some but not all of the sentences consecutively was not reversible error as Phillips has a lengthy criminal record, performs poorly on probation, failed to attend let alone complete drug rehab and committed crimes while on release in this case.