Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review
Discovery Of Retained Nontestifying Experts' Identities Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
This Note proposes an approach to the problem of identification of rule 26(b)(4)(B) experts that differs from both of the approaches taken in the reported opinions. 9 Part I analyzes the language of rule 26(b) and rejects the majority approach. As a matter of statutory construction, rule 26(b )( 4)(B) governs the disclosure of the identity of nontestifying experts retained by a party in preparation for trial. Part II examines the underlying purposes of rules 26(b)(l) and 26(b)(4)(B) - to ensure adequate pretrial disclosure and to prevent unfairness in adversarial competition - and suggests that both interests may be accommodated. …
Abstracts Of Recent Cases, Aaron David Trub
Abstracts Of Recent Cases, Aaron David Trub
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Federal Practise-Review Of Facts-Instance Of When Verdict Must Be Directed
Federal Practise-Review Of Facts-Instance Of When Verdict Must Be Directed
Michigan Law Review
This was a case in which a motion for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to justify a submission of the case to the jury. The circuit court of appeals affirmed this, but on appeal to the Supreme Court it was held error. Southern Ry. Co. v. Walters (U.S. 1931) 52 Sup. Ct. 58.