Lee v. Suess

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a plastic surgeon could testify as to the standard of care owed by family practitioners because he stated his awareness of the standard of care and showed proof of acquiring that knowledge
• finding a doctor’s limited exposure to a particular field merely goes to the weight of his testimony and not its admissibility
• finding trial court erred by finding plastic reconstructive surgeon unqualified to give expert opinion in field of family practice because limited exposure of surgeon to field of family practice merely goes to weight of testimony and not its admissibility
• determining a witness's qualification is dependent on the particular witness's reference to the subject; any defects in the amount and quality of education and experience go to the weight of the expert's testimony and not its admissibility
• generally, defects in amount and quality of education and experience go to weight of expert’s testimony and not its admissibility
• admission of expert testimony is within sound discretion of trial judge and will not be overruled absent finding of abuse of discretion and prejudice to complaining party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).