Utah Supreme Court· 12/30/1982

Dixon v. Stewart

Citations

658 P.2d 591
1982 Utah LEXIS 1145

How courts have described this case

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

observing that “it is generally held that expert testimony is not required in the case of intoxication with alcohol”
observing that “some jurisdictions have specially held that a more trained or experienced observer is necessary to testify as to the intoxicating effects of drugs” while expert testimony on alcohol’s impact is generally not required
“[I]t is generally held that expert testimony is not required in the case of intoxication with alcohol . . . .”
“No matter how arcane the subject matter or how erudite the witness, the jury is not required to accept [an] expert’s testimony as conclusive. The jurors may give such testimony any weight they choose, including no weight at all.”
“While the finder of fact has wide latitude in determining damages, th[e] Court has authority to reduce the amount of the trial court’s award where all reasonable minds would conclude [that] the limits have been exceeded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Durham, Hall, Stewart, Oaks, Howe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Dixon v. Stewart

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.