Kramer v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• relationship of excluded evidence to the issue in the case would not have been “mere conjecture,” and it should have been admitted
• relationship of excluded evidence to issue in case would not have been “mere conjecture” and should have been admitted
• medical evidence intended to show person suffering from ailments in 1943 and 1948 would be suffering from same ailments in 1952 improperly excluded

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).