Legal Opinion

Buck v. St. Clair

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1985No. 15074PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISTLINE, Justice.

The issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court correctly excluded pursuant to I.C. § 6-1013 the testimony of a nationally board-certified out-of-state obstetrician-gynecologist in a medical malpractice case. We hold it was error to exclude this testimony and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The plaintiff called as a witness Dr. Anton Broms, a nationally board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist from Portland, Oregon, to testify regarding the standard of care and the defendant's negligence. The defendant objected to this witness on the basis of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brune v. BelinkoffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968
  2. Ardoline v. KeeganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  3. McGulpin v. BessmerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Pearson v. ParsonsIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Kozlowski v. RushIdaho Supreme Court · 1992
  3. McDaniel v. Inland Northwest Renal Care Group-Idaho, LLCIdaho Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Leazer v. KieferIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Grimes v. GreenIdaho Supreme Court · 1987

31 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