Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Adoption of comparative negligence gives juries the task of allocating fault between a plaintiff and a defendant when both were negligent and both caused the plaintiff's injury. A logical corollary must be that juries are theoretically and practically able to make such an allocation. If so, it follows that juries are able to make such an allocation among multiple defendants, each of whom was found to be both negligent and a cause of the plaintiff's injury. The judicial adoption of comparative negligence in Kentucky therefore requires a reexamination of the rules applicable to multiple tortfeasors. Cases decided since the adoption …
Discovery Of Nonparties' Tangible Things Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Sarah N. Welling
Discovery Of Nonparties' Tangible Things Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Sarah N. Welling
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37 describe procedures for pretrial discovery. While one may employ all the methods of discovery against parties, discovery methods for nonparties are much more limited. For example, with the exception of the independent action under subdivision (c), the procedures detailed in Federal Rule 34 regarding production of tangible things do not apply to nonparties. Frequently, though, a litigant must discover tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of a nonparty. Although the federal rules do provide alternative methods for the discovery of nonparties' things, the whole discovery scheme for nonparties is rather …
The Law Of Presumptions: A Look At Confusion, Kentucky Style, Robert G. Lawson
The Law Of Presumptions: A Look At Confusion, Kentucky Style, Robert G. Lawson
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
Over the years the term “presumption” has been used by virtually all courts to “designate what are more accurately termed inferences or substantive rules of law.” It has also been used as a “loose synonym for presumption of fact, presumption of law, rebuttable presumption, and irrebuttable presumption.” To this list the Kentucky Court of Appeals had added mandatory presumption, presumptive evidence, and prima facie case. Perhaps of more significance than the indiscriminate use of terminology is the extent to which courts have used “presumptions” to describe judicial reasoning of various kinds and to perform chores more appropriate to unrelated procedural …