Francis Ex Rel. Goodridge v. Dahl

How courts have described this case

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

• “Because the evidence was sufficient to support the subsequent injury instruction and adequately formed a question of fact for the jury to decide, we perceive no error by the court in instructing the jury on subsequent injury.”
• “[T]he record reflects some evidence of a later injury suffered by plaintiff” where “experts testified for both parties and expressed conflicting opinions on whether plaintiff’s fall from the pommel horse increased her injuries caused by the accident with defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).