Friedman v. Altoona Pipe & Steel Supply Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “conclusions as to the legal significance of various facts” were “testimony concerning matters outside [the expert’s] area of expertise.”
• holding that “legal opinions as to the meaning of the contract terms at issue,” and “conclusions as to the legal significance of various facts,” was “testimony concerning matters outside [the expert’s] area of expertise.”
• holding expert was not permitted “to give his opinion as to the legal obligations of the parties under the contract”
• noting that allowing a party to cross-examine a witness who the court has improperly allowed to testify does not cure the improper testimony
• holding it was reversible error to permit an attorney witness to interpret a contract and provide an opinion on the obligations of the parties to the contract
• reversing and remanding for trial court’s admission of expert testimony concerning legal obligations of parties to contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).