Legal Opinion
Bonser v. Shainholtz
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided June 12, 2000No. 99SC301PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Rice
This court granted certiorari to address whether the court of appeals erred when it held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence the fact that the respondent and his expert witness were insured by the same insurance trust (Trust). The court of appeals held that commonality of insurance was not admissible in this case because the evidence was not probative of bias, and there was substantial risk of prejfu-dice. See Bonser v. Shainholtz, 983 P.2d 162, 165-66 (Colo.App.1999). We hold that evidence of commonality of insurance is admissible pursuant to CRE 408 and CRE…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Hock v. New York Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- People v. GibbensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- Davis v. Immediate Medical Services, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- People v. WalkerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1983
- Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C. v. EvansSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance v. SvatySupreme Court of Kansas · 2010
- Jesse Ventura v. Taya KyleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Hawes v. ChuaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- People v. SkufcaSupreme Court of Colorado · 2008
- Vasquez v. RoccoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2003
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.