Cochran v. Dube

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that repeated disclosures that the opposing party was insured created a prejudicial effect in the minds of the jurors and, absent a curative instruction, a new trial was necessary
• “The rule is intended to discourage inquiry into a defendant’s indemnity in a manner calculated to influence the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).