Legal Opinion

Harding v. Bell

Utah Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 2002No. 20000766PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice:

¶ 1 This appeal concerns a medical malpractice action. Harding, the appellant/patient, asserts that the trial court exceeded its discretion in not excusing three prospective jurors for cause. In addition, she claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that she was comparatively negligent. We affirm for two reasons. First, the trial court’s failure to excuse the three prospective jurors did not prejudice Harding because she received an impartial jury. Second, Harding’s insufficiency argument fails because she did not marshal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. BoydUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. WiddisonUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. WachUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  4. State v. KrugerUtah Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Neely v. BennettCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2002

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Jau-Fei Chen v. StewartUtah Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Tschaggeny v. Milbank Insurance Co.Utah Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Center, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 2003
  4. D.A. v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Parduhn v. BennettUtah Supreme Court · 2005

9 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