Legal Opinion

Simpson v. Rood

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided March 31, 2003No. 02-183PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1. This is an auto negligence ease. Plaintiffs Steven and Mary Ann Simpson appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant Rodney Rood, Sr. On appeal, the Simpsons claim that the trial court erred in improperly permitting Rood’s cardiologist to testify by telephone. We agree. Therefore we reverse and remand.

¶ 2. The accident occurred just after 7:30 a.m. on January 29, 2000. Steven Simpson was driving his car east on Route 25. Route 25 is a typical Vermont blacktop highway with a double center-line. Simpson drove below the posted speed limit and wore his three-point seatbelt. Simpson…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. United States v. NoblesSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. 17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 929, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8335 George B. Sanders v. Monsanto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  3. Jakab v. JakabSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  4. State v. MuscariSupreme Court of Vermont · 2002
  5. In Interest of GustNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1984

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In re MH 2004-001987Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  2. Aron C. Vance v. Miranda LockeSupreme Court of Vermont · 2022
  3. Tina Stocker v. State of VermontSupreme Court of Vermont · 2021
  4. Simpson v. RoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  5. In Re Mh Xxxx-XxxxxxCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API