Poole v. University of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the plaintiff was entitled to a new trial where the defense counsel’s improper impeachment based on inquiry into collateral matters concerning the witness “may have improperly influenced the jury’s assessment of the credibility of the testimony of [the] plaintiff’s expert witness”
• noting that a cross-examiner may inquire into collateral matters disclosing the past conduct of a witness which tends to impeach his credibility, but the cross-examiner is bound by the witness’s answer about said conduct, even if he believes or knows it to be untrue
• prejudice generated by hearsay letter impugning doctor’s competence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).