Clinton v. Giles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence of an injured pedestrian’s BAC and expert testimony regarding' the BAC was properly excluded at trial because the motorist failed to present independent corroborating evidence of the pedestrian’s intoxication
• holding that evidence of an injured pedestrian’s BAC and expert testimony regarding the BAC was properly excluded at trial because the motorist failed to present independent corroborating evidence of the pedestrian’s intoxication
• “We detect no error in decision of [plaintiff] to file her request for substitution after the verdict . . . . [A]n action is pending in the Court of Common Pleas up to the moment judgment is entered.” (cleaned up)
• “We detect no error in decision of [plaintiff] to file her request for substitution after the verdict . . . . [A]n action is pending in the Court of Common Pleas up to the moment judgment is entered.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).