Guillen v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “[w]e see no reason why the traditional tests of credibility, testimony under oath and cross-examination . . . are insufficient to provide protection against fraudulent claims”
• plaintiff need not present corroborative evidence to recover uninsured motorist benefits
• testimony with- out corroborating evidence was sufficient to recover uninsured motorist benefits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).