William James v. Rosalind Ruiz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an “attorney may not pose such consistency/inconsistency questions to a testifying expert, where the manifest purpose of those questions is to have the jury consider for their truth the absent expert’s hearsay opinions about complex and disputed matters”
• recognizing the \long-standing policy\ of our courts \disfavor[s] the admission of hearsay\ because it is \presumptively deemed to be 'untrustworthy and unreliable'\
• disapproving \of improper 'bootstrapping' of a non-testifying expert's findings on complex and disputed matters\
• radiologist's hearsay opinion finding a disc bulge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).