Show:
MRE
MRE
MISC.
CASE LAW
CASE LAW
100
Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.
What is Rule 401. (Test for Relevant Evidence)
100
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’s own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of Rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
What is Rule 602. (Need for Personal Knowledge)
100
Under Midlands Civil Code § 10.56, Jesse Duran’s statements are attributed to Defendant Hayden Duran. That means that, when offered by Plaintiff, Exhibit 1 constitutes a statement by a party-opponent under Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A).
What is Pretrial Order 2
100
Count 1 – Negligent Parental Supervision
What is Gwozdz v. DeGroote (2014)
100
Because M.C.C. § 10.38(a) makes parent defendants vicariously liable for the actions of their children, the only foreseeability required under Vignesh v. Yeomelakis is that the harm suffered by the plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant’s child. There is no requirement that the harm suffered also have been foreseeable to the parent defendant.
What is M.G.H. v. Blossom (2011)
200
testimony in the form of an opinion rationally based on the witness’s perception
What is Rule 701.a Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
200
A witness’s credibility may be attacked
What is Rule 608. (A Witness’s Character for Truthfulness or Untruthfulness)
200
Where did Bashir get his/her P.h.D?
What is Stanford
200
As a result, evidence whose sole relevance is to show negligence or recklessness by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s decedent is inadmissible in a wrongful death action under Section 10.38.
What is Mars v. Washington (2014)
200
Both assumption of risk and comparative negligence by the plaintiff (or the plaintiff’s decedent) are available defenses in an action brought under M.C.C. § 10.24.
What is Holt v. Garcia (2014)
300
A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
What is Rule 803.2 Excited Utterance
300
The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.
What is Rule 403. (Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons)
300
Sydney Park died at approximately 9:46 a.m. on August 18, 2010, as a result of a single gunshot wound to the head. No other injuries, pre-existing conditions, or post-shooting treatment contributed in any way to her death.
What is Stipulation 3
300
Accordingly, assumption of risk requires a showing of actual, subjective awareness on the part of the plaintiff: a plaintiff does not assume a risk arising out of the defendant’s conduct unless the plaintiff actually knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character.
What is Keith v. Mack (2004)
300
In a wrongful death action, both the deceased and the person(s) prosecuting the action on behalf of the deceased are considered “parties” for all evidentiary purposes. Accordingly, whenever the defendant offers statements of either the decedent or those prosecuting the action on the decedent’s behalf, such statements qualify under Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) as “an opposing party’s statement” and therefore are not hearsay. However, the person prosecuting the action in a wrongful death action is not a party for purposes of establishing “harm” or “injury.” Thus, in a wrongful death action it is not relevant—and may often be substantially prejudicial—that the person prosecuting the action suffered emotional distress, loss of financial support, or loss of companionship. Of course, evidence that is admissible for other purposes is not rendered inadmissible merely because it also happens to provide evidence that the person prosecuting the action suffered harm or injury.
What is Davis v. HappyLand Toy Co. (2011)
400
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion
What is Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
400
Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
What is Rule 404.a1 (Character Evidence)
400
He is famous in the neighborhood (of Jesse, Sydney and Chapin) for his two-foot pet pythons
Who is Gene Bollea
400
The court must distinguish experts relying on otherwise inadmissible hearsay to form scientific conclusions from conduits who merely repeat what they are told. The testimony of the former is admissible; that of the latter is not.
What is Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997)
400
Because Midlands law contains a strong preference for jury determinations of important questions, courts must be careful not to usurp the jury’s role in this context. As long as the proponent of the statement produces evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a given person made a particular statement, the court must assume the statement was made by that person for purposes of assessing its admissibility.
What is Filteau v. Wanek (1992)
500
A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.
What is 803.1 P.S.I
500
An opposing party's statement
What is 801.d.2
500
Swap's girlfriend's name?
Who is Ruhi?
500
Although practices may be different in other jurisdictions, in Midlands it is entirely possible for an out-of-court statement by a person who is or will be testifying in a particular trial to be excluded by the general rule against hearsay. Subject to Rule 801(d), hearsay is any out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. And although the Midlands Rules of Evidence contain a variety of exceptions to the rule that hearsay is generally inadmissible, there is no categorical principle permitting receipt of any out-of-court statement simply because the person who made that out-of-court statement is or will be a witness in the trial.
What is America’s Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2009)
500
Rule 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction, and it depends on the identity of the party offering the statement in question. Specifically, Rule 801(d)(2) permits the plaintiff to offer statements by the defendant and the defendant to offer statements by the plaintiff. But the rule does not permit the plaintiff to offer statements by the plaintiff or the defendant to offer statements by the defendant, even if the opposing party has already elicited out-of-court statements by the party during a preceding examination.
What is Dolly v. Ringo (2010)