Legal Opinion

Pinkett v. Brittingham

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided December 11, 1989PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WALSH, Justice:

In this appeal from an adverse jury award in the Superior Court, the defendant-appellant, Joseph H. Pinkett (“Pinkett”), alleges three erroneous rulings by the trial judge as the basis for reversal of the verdict. He contends that the trial judge improperly commented on the evidence in his instructions to the jury, permitted the question of insurance to be raised during voir dire, and allowed the plaintiff Steven L. Brittingham (“Brittingham”) 1 to call Pink-ett’s medical expert as plaintiffs witness over Pinkett’s objection. We find no error in the language of the instruction…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Probst v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1988
  2. James Kiernan and Mary Kiernan v. Gerald Van Schaik, T/a Van's Atlantic StationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
  3. Chavin v. CopeSupreme Court of Delaware · 1968
  4. Baker v. ReidSupreme Court of Delaware · 1947
  5. Lester Langley v. Turner's Express, Incorporated, Marge Langley v. Turner's Express, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1967

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. White v. Vanderbilt UniversityCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1999
  2. Sammons v. Doctors for Emergency Services, P.A.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2006
  3. General Motors Corp. v. JacksonMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Drejka v. Hitchens Tire Service Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2010
  5. Green v. Alfred A.I. DuPont Institute of the Nemours FoundationSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000

6 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