Klein v. Norwalk Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• applying plenary standard of review because court’s exclusion of expert testimony not based on individual facts of case but rather was legal conclusion
• determining that ‘‘the issue of breach was essential to the case, as it was wholly dispositive of the outcome,’’ when jury answered first interrogatory addressing breach of duty in negative, disregarded other interrogatories, and immediately entered verdict for defendant
• ‘‘[n]othing . . . requires a . . . court to admit opin- ion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• expert’s testimony was “uniquely” important to central issue in case and was not merely cumulative of other testimony
• burden is on party claiming error to prove that error was harmful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).