Mercy Hospital v. Hansen, Lind & Meyer, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a report summarizing a conversation between the report’s author and another person was hearsay within hearsay
• observing that the burden of exploration of facts and assumptions underlying expert testimony rests on opposing counsel’s cross examination
• considering witness’ experience and other education, he need not be an accountant to render an expert opinion on the computation of hospital profits
• noting that it is a function of the fact finder “ ‘to decide which of the experts was more credible, which used the more reliable data, and whose opinion — if any — the [fact finder] would accept’ ” (emphasis added
• stating it was for the fact finder “to decide which of the experts was more credible, which used the more reliable data, and whose opinion—if any—the [fact-finder] would accept”
• which, like the present case, interpreted Iowa Code section 535.3 as it existed prior to the 1987 amendment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).