Legal Opinion

Lopez-Stayer v. Pitts

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided June 22, 2004No. 21984-4-IIIPublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The scope and extent of voir dire is vested in the discretion of the trial judge conducting the trial. State v. Frederiksen, 40 Wn. App. 749, 752-53, 700 P.2d 369 (1985). Here, the trial judge refused to let the plaintiff’s lawyer use the word “insurance” in the conduct of his voir dire of a jury. The judge did permit extensive inquiry into the jurors’ attitudes on medical malpractice litigation, the medical malpractice “crisis,” claims, and frivolous lawsuits. We conclude that the limitations imposed by the trial judge fell well within his discretionary authority. And we therefore affirm the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Washington State Physicians Insurance Exchange & Ass'n v. Fisons Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1993
  3. State v. DavisWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Murray v. MossmanWashington Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Kozlowski v. RushIdaho Supreme Court · 1992

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Capoferri Ex Rel. Capoferri v. Children's Hospital of PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. LOPEZ-STAYER EX REL. STAYER v. PittsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
  3. State of Washington v. John J. MunzanrederCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  4. HOUSING AUTHOR. OF CITY OF EVERETT v. KirbyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2010
  5. Hawkins v. DielCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011

5 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