Reed v. Bouchard

Supreme Court of Vermont

Reed v. Bouchard

513 A.2d 42, 147 Vt. 646, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 407

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 20, 1986

DocketNo. 84-308

StatusPublished

This text of 513 A.2d 42 (Reed v. Bouchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed v. Bouchard, 513 A.2d 42, 147 Vt. 646, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 407 (Vt. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The testimony of the plaintiff, objected to as a matter for an expert, was rationally based upon her perceptions, V.R.E. 701, and fell within the scope of common experience, see South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33, 46, 410 A.2d 1359, 1365 (1980). Therefore, it was properly admissible.

We find no error in the court’s ruling as to the contract formed or the damages awarded.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The testimony of the plaintiff, objected to as a matter for an expert, was rationally based upon her perceptions, V.R.E. 701, and fell within the scope of common experience, see South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33, 46, 410 A.2d 1359, 1365 (1980). Therefore, it was properly admissible.

We find no error in the court’s ruling as to the contract formed or the damages awarded.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 A.2d 42, 147 Vt. 646, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-bouchard-vt-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack