Legal Opinion

Reid v. Yellow Cab Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided April 17, 1929PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, C. J.

It was error for the court to admit the testimony regarding past events of the witness Dr. Alan W. Smith, consulted by plaintiff for the express purpose of qualifying himself to testify. Dr. Smith never treated plaintiff. There were two trials in the case and just before the first trial he was consulted by plaintiff at the request of her attorneys for the express purpose of qualifying him to testify. At the second trial he was again consulted for the same purpose. I think that his testimony wherein he was permitted to relate what the witness told him about how the accident occurred, about her…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Roosa v. Boston Loan Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
  2. Shaughnessy v. HoltIllinois Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Cronin v. Fitchburg & Leominster Street Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1902
  4. Barron v. DukeOregon Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Consolidated Traction Co. v. LambertsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1897

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. MoenOregon Supreme Court · 1990
  2. London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. WoelfleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1936
  3. State v. HarrisOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Dorothy S. Walker v. West Coast Fast Freight, Inc., a Corporation, and M. L. BurrCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
  5. Henderson v. Union Pacific RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1950

19 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