McLane v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “jurors were not required to accept the testimony of [a witness] as conclusive merely because he qualified as a medical expert”
• stating that expert testimony “should be given the same consideration as is given that of any other witness”
• stating that expert testimony \should be given the same consideration as is given that of any other witness\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).