People Ex Rel. Kraushaar Bros. & Co. v. Thorpe
Cases that cite this one
51 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Imposition of Sanctions in Alt v. Cline (Wis. 1999)
- Jistarri v. Nappi (Pa. 1988)
- Krumme v. West Point-Pepperell, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Mason v. Robinson (Iowa 1983)
- Kaufman v. Edelstein (2d Cir. 1976)
- Barabash v. Castellano (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Barabash v. Castellano (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- McCoy v. Gibson (Rockingham County Circuit Court 2000)
- Miller v. Secura Supreme Insurance Company (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2023)
- Caldwell v. Cablevision Systems Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Carney-Hayes Ex Rel. McCormack v. Northwest Wisconsin Home Care, Inc. (Wis. 2005)
- Denise v. Eli Lilly & Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Gilly v. City of New York (N.Y. 1987)
- Fenlon v. Thayer (N.H. 1986)
- Marvin L. Tenzer, P.C. v. Lewitinn (District Court, S.D. New York 1985)
- State Highway & Transportation Commissioner v. Urban (Henrico County Circuit Court 1982)
- United States v. International Business Machines Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1975)
- Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Witkowski (Ark. 1975)
- In re the Estate of Rothko (New York Surrogate's Court 1974)
- Karp v. Cooley (District Court, S.D. Texas 1972)
- United States v. Two Tracts Of Land In The Town Of Brookhaven (2d Cir. 1969)
- United States v. Two Tracts of Land (2d Cir. 1969)
- Town of Thomaston v. Ives (Conn. 1968)
- State Highway Commission v. Earl (S.D. 1966)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this tax certiorari proceeding relator subpoenaed an involuntary expert witness who previously had prepared an appraisal of the property in suit for a prior owner. At the trial relator sought to elicit the witness’s opinion as to the value of the premises but the witness declined to accept a fee and refused to testify, stating that he did not wish to take part in the case. The trial court ruled, over relator’s objection, that, while the witness was required to testify with regard to what he had seen on the premises, he had a right to refuse to answer any question connected with his experience and judgment as a real estate expert and not as an ordinary lay witness. We find no error in this ruling.
*225 While the question presented has not been considered in this court, the ruling of the trial court affirmed in the court below is supported by People v. Raigen (211 App. Div. 446, 461-462), Birch v. Sees (178 App. Div. 609); see, also, People ex rel. Deuel v. Shaw (259 App. Div. 977), Brown v. Travelers’ Life & Accident Ins. Co. (26 App. Div. 544), Tiffany v. Kellogg Iron Works (59 Misc. 113), Peoples v. Montgomery (13 Abb. Prac. [N. S.] 207).
The authorities in other States are in conflict, Indiana, New Jersey and Pennsylvania following the rule in England (Webb v. Page, 1 Car. & K. 23 [1843] holding that an expert witness cannot be compelled to give expert testimony but may contract to do so for an adequate consideration (Buchman v. State, 59 Ind. 1; Hull v. Plume, 131 N. J. L. 511; Stanton v. Rushmore, 112 N. J. L. 115; Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances v. Philadelphia, 262 Pa. 439). Cases in other States in which experts have been required to give professional opinions in evidence against their will almost without exception limit the examinations to opinions which the experts are able to give without study of the facts or other preparation (Ex parte Dement, 53 Ala. 389, 397; Flinn v. Prairie County, 60 Ark. 204, 207-208; People v. Conte, 17 Cal. App. 771, 784; County Commrs. v. Lee, 3 Col. App. 177, 179-180; Dixon v. People, 168 Ill. 179, 191; Swope v. State, 145 Kan. 928, 933; Stevens v. Worcester, 196 Mass. 45, 56; Barnes v. Boatmen’s Nat. Bank, 348 Mo. 1032, 1038; Mount v. Welsh, 118 Ore. 568, 585; State ex rel. Berge v. Superior Court, 154 Wash. 144, 148; Philler v. Waukesha County, 139 Wis. 211, 215, 217; Boynton v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 36 F. Supp. 593). The latter rule is quite unsatisfactory. In the realms of medicine, law, science, and many other callings where highly specialized knowledge is essential, only the most eminent are competent to answer ex tempore and • defend impromptu opinions upon cross-examination, but none, without reflection upon his professional ability, may confess ignorance.
We think the better rule is not to compel a witness to give Ms opinion as an expert against his will.
The order should be affirmed, with costs.
Loughran, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.