Texas Supreme Court· 6/14/1996

Broders v. Heise

Citations

924 S.W.2d 148
39 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 752
1996 Tex. LEXIS 74

How courts have described this case

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

holding that general medical expertise did not qualify physician to testify on causation without proof that he had experience or training in neurosurgery
holding that a witness’s qualification depends on “whether the expert’s expertise goes to the very matter on which he or she is to give an opinion.”
holding that absent clear abuse of discretion, supreme court will not disturb trial court’s ruling on qualification of expert witness
holding that general medical expertise did not qualify physician to testify on causation without proof that he had experience or training in neurosurgery
concluding that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony where the proponent failed to establish that the physician was qualified to opine “on cause in fact”
holding that a witness’s qualification depends on “whether the expert’s expertise goes to the very matter on which he or she is to give an opinion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Phillips

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

629 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.