Wipf v. Kowalski

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that \in a case of dueling experts ... it is left to the trier of fact ... to decide how to weigh the competing expert testimony\
• finding that plaintiff “opened the door” to cross-examination on a scientific article published in 2005 when her attorney questioned an expert about a previous article by the same author whose views were updated in the 2005 article
• explaining that “in a case of dueling experts . . . it is left to the trier of fact . . . to decide how to weigh the competing expert testimony”
• explaining that “in a case of dueling experts . . . it is left to the trier of fact . . . to decide how to weigh the competing expert testimony”
• explaining that “in a case of dueling experts . . . it is left to the trier of fact . . . to decide how to weigh the competing expert testimony”
• parties do not ordinarily need to renew objection to preserve a claim of error for appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).