Bindinglaw

UT · jury_instructions

MUJI 2d CV133

Conflicting testimony of experts.

activein force · 2026-08-21 – presentas-observed

In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of [names of experts], you may compare and weigh the opinion of one against that of another. In doing this, you may consider the qualifications and credibility of each, as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts on which the opinions are based.

MUJI 1st Instruction

6.31

Committee Amended

3/2020

Provenance

Source
legacy.utcourts.gov
Retrieved
2026-08-22
Edition
2026-08-21
Content hash
a9da1b97be8361f59eb218d3df0c1f3ee627e38d5f123334af5be78564420dbc
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.