stating that where a transcript is being offered to show personal knowledge of the alleged problems surrounding an individual’s employment, and not to ' establish the intrinsic truth of those respective problems, the transcript is not considered hearsay
How later courts described this case
- stating that where a transcript is being offered to show personal knowledge of the alleged problems surrounding an individual’s employment, and not to ' establish the intrinsic truth of those respective problems, the transcript is not considered hearsay
- stating that where a transcript is offered to show knowledge of the alleged problems surrounding an individuals employment, and not to establish the intrinsic truth of those problems, the transcript is not hearsay
- holding directors must act with ordinary care under Florida statute before business judgment rule applies
- concluding that the district court erred by declining to revisit its earlier ruling on a legal standard because “the denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss was not a final judgment, [so] the decision regarding the standard of care was not the law of the case”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although I agree with the law this opinion announces and the reasoning in the opinion, I respectfully dissent in part. I would grant Stahl and Cheplak a new trial because the pre-1987 Florida law on the standard of care for directors was at best confusing. This opinion announces a clear standard to govern directors in this circuit. I fully concur in this standard; but, neither the district court nor the parties had the benefit of this standard at the trial of this case. In light of the confu *1523 sion in our circuit law and the split in circuits, the district court followed the law of its district. Consequently, I would order a new trial for Stahl and Cheplak with this standard to be applied.