Legal Opinion

Joslin v. Griffith

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided June 1, 1965No. 1993PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Barney, J.,

The plaintiff recovered a verdict in this automobile accident case. The defendant accounts for the result by pointing to the introduction of testimony exposing his liability insurance coverage to the jury. He contends that his motions for mistrial, based on that testimony, should have been granted below.

We find insurance referred to in our cases as a “poisonous” fact. Ryan v. Barrett, 105 Vt. 21, 23, 162 Atl. 793. Its unnecessary interjection into a case as an immaterial fact has been repeatedly held to require retrial. Bliss v. Moore, 112 Vt. 185, 187, 22 A. 2d 315. Our policy is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Landry v. HubertSupreme Court of Vermont · 1927
  2. Ronan v. J. G. Turnbull Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1926
  3. Bliss v. Moore StoughtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
  4. MacDonald, B.N.F. v. OrtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1926
  5. Raymond's Admx. v. Rutland Railway, Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1916

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Turner v. Roman Catholic DioceseSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
  2. Hardy v. BerishaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1984
  3. Cone Realty Corp. v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1979
  4. Duval v. DiamondstoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1974
  5. Connor v. McGillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1968

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