Legal Opinion
Kennemur v. State of California
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 15, 1982No. Civ. 5224PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
FRANSON, Acting P. J.
This appeal presents two questions of importance to the trial bar: (1) the meaning of the phrase “the general substance of the testimony which the witness is expected to give” as provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 2037.3 1 governing the contents of expert witness exchange lists; and (2) the meaning of the word “impeachment” as used in section 2037.5 governing the testimony of an expert witness on rebuttal where the general substance of the witness’ proposed testimony was not disclosed before trial as required by section 2037.3. We hold the trial judge…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Moody v. PeiranoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Swartzman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Callahan v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Bolles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- People v. GardeleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- People v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
- Wegener v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2008
- Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
- Howard Contracting, Inc. v. G.A. MacDonald Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1999
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.