Phelipe Linstrom v. Quiktrip Corporation, No. 21-1258 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Benton, Kelly, and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Plaintiff's challenge to the district court's evidentiary ruling rejected, as the district court's decision was not an abuse of its discretion and plaintiff has failed to show how the ruling substantially influenced the jury's verdict.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1258 ___________________________ Phelipe A. Linstrom lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Quiktrip Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: August 30, 2021 Filed: September 2, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Phelipe Linstrom appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his motion for a new jury trial in his civil action. He argues that the district court abused its 1 The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. discretion in sustaining Quiktrip Corporation’s objections to portions of the deposition testimony of Linstrom’s expert witnesses and not allowing those portions to be read to the jury. After careful review, we conclude that the ruling was proper for the reasons stated by the district court, and the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion. See McPheeters v. Black & Veatch Corp., 427 F.3d 1095, 1101 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e accord the district court wide discretion in admitting and excluding evidence, and its decision will not be disturbed unless there is a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)). Morever, Linstrom has not shown that the district court’s ruling substantially influenced the jury’s verdict. See id. (“We will not reverse a judgment on the basis of erroneous evidentiary rulings absent a showing that those rulings had a substantial influence on the jury’s verdict.”). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
