Maples v. Howe

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “a plaintiff is required to present competent, non-conclusory expert evidence sufficient to support” findings of seriousness and causation
• stating that plaintiff’s own self-serving testimony is, in the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence, insufficient to raise a triable issue for submission to the jury
• explaining that to recover damages for non-economic loss related to an injury sustained in an accident, “a plaintiff is required to present competent, non-conclusory expert evidence sufficient to support” findings of seriousness and causation
• explaining that to recover damages for non-economic loss related to an injury sustained in an accident, “a plaintiff is required to present competent, non- conclusory expert evidence sufficient to support” findings of seriousness and causation
• “a plaintiff is required to present competent, non-conclusory expert evidence sufficient to support a finding, not only that the alleged injury is ‘serious’ within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).