In an August 2, 2013 opinion, Stollings v. Ryobi Technologies, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the defendants' attacks on the motives of the plaintiff's counsel at a jury trial were irrelevant to the matter at hand, and deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter for re-trial, providing a brief lesson in the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).

The plaintiff in this action, Stollings, lost an index finger in a table saw accident. He sued the manufacturer, the defendant Ryobi Technologies, alleging that the saw was not equipped with two specific safety features that would have prevented the accident. One safety feature was an automatic braking system, developed in 1999 by non-party Gass. Gass and Ryobi entered into licensing negotiations years ago, but Roybi never licensed nor used the product. Stollings called Gass as an expert witness.

From its opening arguments, Ryobi framed the case for the jury as a joint venture between Stollings's attorneys and Gass to coerce Ryobi and other saw manufacturers to license and use the automatic braking technology. Stollings objected to this line of argument, but Ryobi claimed that it had evidence supporting its claims. The judge allowed these arguments, in part due to his (mistaken) understanding that the line of argument would be limited to Gass's credibility and motives. When Ryobi presented a newspaper article as evidence of a joint venture, Stollings objected on hearsay grounds, but this was overruled. The judge later came to realize that the defense was attacking Stollings's counsel and issued jury instructions in an attempt to compensate, but allowed the jury to consider the motives of Stollings's counsel. The jury found for Ryobi, and Stollings appealed.

The Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for a re-trial, finding that Ryobi's actions deprived Stollings of a fair trial. The circuit court held that Ryobi's "joint venture argument" was irrelevant to the dispute at hand, because the motivations of Stollings's attorneys had no bearing on any element of the case. The court reasoned that this line of argument alone was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial.

The court also found that:

This matter should remind practitioners of the dangers presented when a party makes an argument that is not strictly pertinent to the issues at hand, and of the costs incurred when a court decision is remanded for re-trial.