Strain v. Heinssen

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 ageney or employment relationship, payment by an insurance company in exchange for an expert's testimony at trial was not probative enough to outweigh prejudice
• 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
• finding trial court “reasonably balanced the questions of relevancy, probative value and prejudice implicated when the revelation of insurance coverage is at issue”
• mere payment by insurance company in exchange for expert’s testimony at trial not probative enough to outweigh prejudice absent an agency or employment relationship
• mere payment by insurance company in exchange for expert’s testimony at trial not probative enough to outweigh prejudice absent an agency or employment relationship
• no abuse of discretion in prohibiting plaintiff from asking experts if services retained by defendant’s insurance company because no evidence of an agency or employment relationship between experts and insurance carrier beyond mere payment of fee for testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).