Legal Opinion

Ricard v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1934PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.

The defendant argues in support of its motions that the plaintiff’s doctors were not qualified by either study or experience to give expert opinions on the medical question involved. It has long been the law of this state that the qualifications of a witness to give expert opinion presents a preliminary question of fact to be determined at the trial by the presiding justice, and will not, in the absence of abuse of discretion, be reviewed in this court unless that question of discretion “is specially reserved by him for revision.” Jones v. Tucker, 41 N. H. 546; Taylor v. Railway, 48 N. H.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Nawn v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
  2. Salvas v. CantinSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
  3. Hould v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
  4. Laird v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
  5. Flint v. Union Water Power Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1906

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dowling v. L. H. Shattuck, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
  2. Krohne v. Orlando Farming CorporationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1958
  3. Adams v. SeveranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1945
  4. Dunsmore v. Ralston Purina Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940
  5. Hewett v. RileySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1947

3 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