ConstructLaw® discusses recent cases and current issues in construction law
Reposted from The Dispute Resolver with permission.
A recent decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, Munro v. Georgia Department of Transportation, highlights how overly specific and inflexible rules of evidence can create peculiar results.
Munro involved a dispute over the design of a Georgia intersection. No. A23A0404…
Reposted from The Dispute Resolver with permission.
You are conducting the final hearing of a high-dollar construction arbitration. Opposing counsel hands you the next document that counsel plans to use in questioning the witness on the stand. You notice that the document is bates stamped but has no exhibit number. So, you quickly consult opposing counsel’s exhibit list and – gasp – you find that the document is not on the list. What do you do? Do you object?
New York State Thruway Auth. v. CHA Consulting, Inc., 165 N.Y.S.3d 832 (Albany Co., Sup. Ct. 2022).
This case involved a dispute over a wind turbine project. The root cause of the dispute was a bust between the “wind turbulence” at the site, and the wind turbulence that the turbines installed could withstand. Once the project was completed and commissioned, the overworked turbines prematurely failed.
In addition to cookies that are necessary for website operation, this website uses cookies and other tracking tools for various purposes, including to provide enhanced functionality and measure website performance. To learn more about our information practices, please visit our Privacy Notice.
