New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 3/25/2015

William James v. Rosalind Ruiz

Citations

440 N.J. Super. 45
111 A.3d 123

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).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.