Langston v. Southern Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that investigator's testimony about actions he took after conversations he had with three-year-old victim was admissible as the investigator did not directly relate to the jury any statements made by the child and the defense had an opportunity to cross-examine the investigator
• holding the issue was preserved when the trial court immediately appeared to understand the objection was a renewal of a previous argument
• holding an issue was preserved when “[t]he trial court immediately appeared to understand the objection as a ... hearsay argument”
• ruling forensic interviewer's testimony about \a compelling finding of child abuse\ was the equivalent of her stating the child was being truthful
• holding “even though experts are permitted to give an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others”
• holding forensic interviewers should avoid (1) stating the child was instructed to be truthful; (2) offering a direct opinion on the “child’s veracity or tendency to tell the truth”; (3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).