Opinion ID: 771749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Evidence on Remand

Text: 33 Finally, Denune argues that the district court erred by allowing Carter-Jones to introduce evidence of veil-piercing on remand when it had not done so at trial. We find no error. 34 Bestfoods was decided in June, 1998, after the first trial in the district court. We remanded for consideration of the veil-piercing question in light of Bestfoods, noting explicitly that the district court had not considered it in the earlier proceeding. See Carter-Jones Lumber, 166 F.3d at 847-48. On remand, the decision whether to hear new evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Brunet v. City of Columbus, 58 F.3d 251, 257 (6th Cir. 1995), quoting Yashon v. Gregory,737 F.2d 547, 556 (6th Cir. 1984). Our failure to specify that further evidence should be taken on remand could, at most, be construed as leaving a decision on the need to reopen the record to the sound discretion of the trial court. Skehan v. Board of Trs., 590 F.2d 470, 478 (3d Cir. 1978). We find no abuse of discretion. 3. Conclusion 35 For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is affirmed. Denune's motion to certify a question to the Ohio Supreme Court is denied.