Stang-Starr v. Byington
Nebraska Supreme Court
532 N.W.2d 26 (1995)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Teri Stang-Starr (plaintiff) sued Dr. Robert Byington (defendant) for medical malpractice, arguing that Byington had failed to properly diagnose and treat her cervical cancer. At trial, Stang-Starr attempted to have medical literature, including textbooks, technical bulletins, and journal articles, admitted into evidence. Stang-Starr had two medical experts who had relied on this literature and who were willing to testify that it was authoritative in their respective medical subject areas. The trial court refused to admit the medical literature into evidence. The court found that the literature was inadmissible hearsay because it was being offered to prove the truth of the statements included in it, although in reality, those statements had been made by people who were not in the court for cross-examination. Stang-Starr also tried to have her two medical experts read portions of medical literature into evidence during their testimony. The trial court denied these efforts, ruling that reading the literature was just reading someone else’s statements and, therefore, still inadmissible hearsay. The jury found for Byington, and the medical-malpractice claim was dismissed. Stang-Starr appealed, arguing that the medical literature should have been allowed into evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Caporale, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
