Court Opinion

ID: 9666265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:09:25.721584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.640332
License: Public Domain

BILL VANCE, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s disposition of Leaird’s first issue regarding the admission of the opinion of its banker, Worthington. I agree that the issue is properly before us, but I do not believe that the error was “rendered harmless” by the admission of “similar” evidence.
Testimony by Jeb McClellan and/or Clay McClellan that they “made poor management decisions” does not equate to a banker’s opinion that “mismanagement and bad financial management continued to plague them.” Testimony by Wrangler’s expert to the effect that Leaird’s “had too much inventory based on the level of sales it was experiencing” or that it “maintained inaccurate financial records” does not equate to Leaird’s own banker’s opinion about mismanagement or bad financial management.
I would hold that the court erred in admitting the opinion testimony, find that the error harmed Leaird’s, reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for another trial.