Moore v. Grantham

4 Citing cases

  1. Moore v. Grantham

    599 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1980)   Cited 41 times
    In Moore v. Grantham, 599 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1980), the court observed that for many years, the Texas rule regarding expert opinion was that the opinion could not be based solely on "statements or reports of third persons, unless those statements are properly in evidence and the opinion is sought through hypothetical questions."

    The court of civil appeals affirmed. That court interpreted Slaughter as permitting the introduction of an expert's opinion based upon hearsay so long as the hearsay was "of a type upon which the expert and others within his profession customarily (relied) . . . ." 580 S.W.2d 142, 148. We disagree with the lower courts' reading of our decision in Slaughter, and the other applicable precedents.

  2. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Dixon

    632 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App. 1982)   Cited 2 times
    In Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Dixon, 632 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.App. — Dallas 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court found medical reports which contained reports and documents not generated by the doctors or their employees but produced from outside sources were not admissible. Most of the report which the court excluded in this case was a summary of notes and reports made by other doctors.

    561 S.W.2d at 791. Medical experts generally may rely on reports from the patient, see Travelers Insurance Co. v. Smith, 448 S.W.2d 541, 543 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1969, writ ref'd n. r. e.); on professional reports, treatises, and textbooks, see Moore v. Grantham, 580 S.W.2d 142, 148 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979) rev'd, 599 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. 1980); and on examinations, tests and diagnoses by other doctors, see Roth v. Law, 579 S.W.2d 949, 953 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.). See generally, McCormick Ray, Texas Law of Evidence § 1404 (3d ed. 1980).

  3. Eagle Trucking v. Tx. Bitulithic

    590 S.W.2d 200 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 15 times
    In Eagle Trucking Co. v. Texas Bitulithic Co., 590 S.W.2d 200, 211-14 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1979), rev'd in part on other grounds, 612 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 1981), the only independent contractor question presented on appeal was whether the trial court properly directed a verdict against the plaintiff in that respect, the holding of the Court of Civil Appeals, and of the Supreme Court, being that the directed verdict was proper.

    Having applied this test in the instant case, we overrule Fitch and Eagle Trucking's points of error complaining of the granting of the motions for instructed verdict of G G Construction and Texas Bitulithic. Upon reviewing the statement of facts, we have noticed that portions of the testimony have been bracketed in red ink by one of the parties. As we have stated previously, Moore v. Grantham, 580 S.W.2d 142, 152 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1979, writ pending), we strongly disapprove of such a practice.

  4. Adams v. Morris

    584 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that even if officer's testimony on speed was inadmissible, it was merely cumulative and corroborative of other evidence and was therefore harmless error

    In conjunction with this education and experience, Officer Preckwinkle based his opinion on the point at which the vehicle began to drift to the left, the result of the vehicle's impact with the curb, the weight of the car, and the distance the vehicle traveled before coming to a stop. It is within the trial court's discretion to determine whether a particular witness is qualified to testify as an expert, and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Moore v. Grantham, 580 S.W.2d 142, 147 (Tex.Civ.App. Tyler 1979, application for writ pndg.); Texas Sanitation Company, Inc. v. Marek, 381 S.W.2d 710, 716 (Tex.Civ.App. Corpus Christi 1964, n. w. h.). We do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in the instant case.