Mendoza v. Varon

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, absent an agency or employment relationship, payment by an insurance company in exchange for an expert's testimony at trial was not probative enough to outweigh prejudice
• no error in excluding evidence of common insurer where witness had “no direct interest” in outcome of litigation
• possible bias arising out of fact that defendant’s expert witness and defendant were insured by same company insufficient to warrant admission of such evidence in light of potential prejudice to defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).