Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henderson v. Tyrrell

decided: March 14, 1996.

DELORES L. HENDERSON, A SINGLE WOMAN; DAREN K. HENDERSON, A SINGLE MAN; AND DWIGHT K. HENDERSON, A SINGLE MAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEVEN D. TYRRELL, A SINGLE PERSON, RESPONDENT.



Dennis J. Sweeney, Chief Judge

Author: Sweeney

Order AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The opinion filed in the above matter on February 15, 1996, is amended as follows:

Page 43, a footnote will be added after the following sentence:

Its language is taken directly from Lindquist, and is a correct statement of the law. 17

17 We are aware of, but disagree with, a federal district court's conclusion that RCW 4.22.070 abrogated the common law Lindquist rule. See Chinchinian, 807 F. Supp. 634, 643 (E.D. Wash. 1992).

The footnotes after n.17 will follow in their new numerical sequence.

Page 46, the last paragraph which reads:

Mr. Choppa's opinion was based on the facts of Stacey Tyrrell's educational record and current salary, which were made known to him before the trial, as is permitted under ER 703. In addition, the facts of Stacey Tyrrell's achievements came before the jury in the form of direct testimony by Stacey Tyrrell. They are as reliable as any facts presented under those circumstances, and ER 703 is not an issue.

is hereby changed to read:

Mr. Choppa's opinion was based on the facts of Stacey Tyrrell's educational record and current salary, which were made known to him before the trial, as is permitted under ER 703. In addition, the facts of Stacey Tyrrell's achievements came before the jury in the form of direct testimony by Stacey Tyrrell. They are as reliable as any facts presented under those circumstances.

Page 47, first paragraph, which reads:

Mr. Henderson suggests, however, that the court should not have admitted Mr. Choppa's opinion because there was an insufficient showing that experts in the field generally agree on the use of comparisons among siblings. ER 702 allows expert testimony if it will "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue . . . ." Mr. Choppa explained his opinion and the facts on which it was based; the opinion was helpful to the jury in determining damages, and thus was admissible. Mr. Henderson cross-examined Mr. Choppa regarding his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.