Beahm v. Shortall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the improper receipt of evidence was not substantially injurious where the substance of the testimony had previously been admitted through the party's testimony
• finding that a lay witness could testify as to the speed of an object
• \[W]hat constitutes prejudice warranting reversal in the erroneous admission or rejection of evidence is to be determined on the circumstances of each case.\
• “[W]hat constitutes prejudice warranting reversal in the erroneous admission or rejection of evidence is to be determined on the circumstances of each case.”
• “Precise standards for the degree of prejudice required for reversal, have not been, and perhaps cannot be, established.”
• erroneous admission, as substantive evidence, of non-treating physician’s testimony was harmless error because same testimony was properly admitted from treating physician

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).