Davis v. Maute
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
VEASEY, Chief Justice.
This personal injury case requires us to address the question of the limitations on defense counsel’s argument and the admissibility of photographs of a vehicle, both of which are impliedly advanced, without expert testimony, to minimize personal injury damages because damage to the vehicle was minor. In his opening statement and in summation, counsel for the defendant suggested that the plaintiffs subjective complaints about serious personal injuries lacked credibility because the injuries were allegedly the product of a minor automobile accident referred to by counsel…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Jardel Co., Inc. v. HughesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1987
- Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Trust FundSupreme Court of Delaware · 1991
- Mazda Motor Corp. v. LindahlSupreme Court of Delaware · 1998
- DeAngelis v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Delaware · 1993
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Brenman v. DemelloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
- Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2006
- DiCosola v. BowmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Christ v. SchwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Corriette v. MoralesSupreme Court of The Virgin Islands · 2008
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.