Legal Opinion

Basham v. Babcock

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1996No. B091949PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GILBERT, J.

Here we hold that a party who has designated an expert to testify on a particular subject may not replace that expert with one stated on a supplemental list.

Plaintiffs appeal from a defense verdict in their personal injury trial. The trial court allowed an expert designated by defendant on a supplemental list to testify in place of the originally designated expert and on the same subject matter. Plaintiffs contend this is error under Code of Civil Procedure section 2034. We agree and reverse. 1 [[/]] *

Facts

Garlyn A. Basham filed a complaint against Judith Babcock for damages…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Thomas v. LuskCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  2. Castaneda v. BornsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Martinez v. City of PowayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Pina v. Cnty. of L. A., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. Olson v. Price CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Pina v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API