Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1959–1965 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nardis Sportswear v. Simmons
green
2 sentences1963N.R.E.) the following quotation is emphasized: “ * * * We think the better rule is that a medical witness cannot be cross-examined by reading excerpts to him from a medical book and asking him whether he agrees or disagrees therewith, unless he has either recognized such book as authoritative or has based his opinion in whole or in part thereupon.” and from Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 13 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949): “When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he 1963E.) the following quotation is emphasized: "* * * We think the better rule is that a medical witness cannot be cross-examined by reading excerpts to him from a medical book and asking him whether he agrees or disagrees therewith, unless he has either recognized such book as authoritative or has based his opinion in whole or in part thereupon." and from Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779 , 13 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949): "When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he so | 4 | 1959–1965 |
Bowles v. Bourdon
green
2 sentences1963N.R.E.) the following quotation is emphasized: “ * * * We think the better rule is that a medical witness cannot be cross-examined by reading excerpts to him from a medical book and asking him whether he agrees or disagrees therewith, unless he has either recognized such book as authoritative or has based his opinion in whole or in part thereupon.” and from Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779, 13 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949): “When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he 1963E.) the following quotation is emphasized: "* * * We think the better rule is that a medical witness cannot be cross-examined by reading excerpts to him from a medical book and asking him whether he agrees or disagrees therewith, unless he has either recognized such book as authoritative or has based his opinion in whole or in part thereupon." and from Bowles v. Bourdon, 148 Tex. 1 , 219 S.W.2d 779 , 13 A.L.R.2d 1 (1949): "When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he so | 3 | 1962–1965 |
City of Austin v. Cannizzo
green
2 sentences1962The case of City of Austin v. Cannizzo, 153 Texas 324 , 267 S.W. 2d 808 , decided by this Court in 1954, was a condemnation suit. 1962The case of City of Austin v. Cannizzo, 153 Texas 324 , 267 S.W. 2d 808 , decided by this Court in 1954, was a condemnation suit. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Rogers v. Heath
green
1 sentence1959J., in Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 587 , 12 N.W. 862 : ‘It was not improper to resort to the book, not to prove the facts it contained, but to disprove the statement of the witness and enable the jury to see that the hook did not contain what he had ascribed to it.’ ” We think the Supreme Court of Texas, in Bowles v. Bourdon, Tex.Civ.App.1949, 219 S.W.2d 779, 783 , recognized this orthodox rule in stating: “When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he -may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he so recognizes | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Pinney v. Cahill
green
1 sentence1959J., in Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584, 587 , 12 N.W. 862 : ‘It was not improper to resort to the book, not to prove the facts it contained, but to disprove the statement of the witness and enable the jury to see that the hook did not contain what he had ascribed to it.’ ” We think the Supreme Court of Texas, in Bowles v. Bourdon, Tex.Civ.App.1949, 219 S.W.2d 779, 783 , recognized this orthodox rule in stating: “When a doctor testifies as an expert relative to injuries or diseases he -may be asked to identify a given work as a standard authority on the subject involved; and if he so recognizes | 1 | 1959–1959 |