Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Dempsey

2 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. Lichtor v. Clark

    845 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    In State ex rel. Lichtor v. Clark, 845 S.W.2d 55 (Mo. App. 1992), the plaintiff in a personal injury case objected to being examined by a physician selected by defense counsel, complaining that the doctor was biased.

    It is clear, for instance, that even in the trial of the substantive issues an opposing party may show that an expert is being paid for the time spent testifying, and the amount of such compensation may be shown. Board of Public Buildings v. GMT Corp., 580 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App. 1979); Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Dempsey, 232 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Ct.App. 1950). Counsel may also inquire as to how the expert came to be employed as an expert in the case.

  2. Texas Employers' Ins. Assoc. v. Hadley

    289 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Civ. App. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    ' Goforth v. Alvey, 153 Tex. 449, 271 S.W.2d 404. Speaking of prejudicial evidence, the Supreme Court stated: 'There is in the record evidence upon which an impartial and unprejudiced jury could reach the very verdict the jury did reach in this case. Cole v. Waite, ( 151 Tex. 175) 246 S.W.2d 849. ' Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Poe, 152 Tex. 18, 253 S.W.2d 645, 646; Hobbs v. Slayton, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W.2d 838; Poole v. State Highway Department, Tex.Civ.App., 256 S.W.2d 168; Highway Ins. Underwriters v. Dempsey, Tex.Civ.App., 232 S.W.2d 117. And we repeat the Supreme Court again: 'We judge by the degree of the vice, not merely the subject matter of the argument.' Wade v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n, 150 Tex. 557, 244 S.W.2d 197, 201.