SENECA PIPE & PAVING CO., INC. v. SOUTH SENECA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRIC

How courts have described this case

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

• reiterating that the uncorroborated testimony of the complaining witness is sufficient to convict a defendant of a sexual offense
• finding that sexual assault and indecent assault were both established by the victim’s testimony about a lack of consent
• concluding that expert’s testimony did not improperly bolster victim’s credibility where expert was not provided with a factual account of case, had not spoken to the victim, and “she testified generally about the manner in which victims of sexual abuse respond to an assault.”
• holding the fact-finder has the responsibility of “resolving contradictory testimony and questions of credibility.”
• stating that where a party opposes expert testimony pursuant to Rule 702, they “must demonstrate that the expert’s testimony is based on novel scientific evidence, i.e., that there is (Footnote Continued Next Page
• stating that, an expert’s general testimony “about the manner in which victims of sexual abuse respond to an assault” was permissible because the export did not offer an opinion as to the credibility of the victim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).