Assuming, arguendo, that when an expert testifies that he agrees only with parts of a treatise, that treatise is not deemed authoritative for the purpose of impeaching the expert with it, nevertheless, the questioning which was permitted here was proper on the entirely independent ground that it constituted questioning with regard to prior inconsistent statements. Contradictory, material testimony may be introduced into evidence for the purpose of impeachment (Joseph v...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.