Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Civil Practice (4)
- 6th Amendment (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Daubert (1)
-
- Deliberate elicitation (1)
- Economic analysis (1)
- Employment Practice (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Exposure (1)
- False testimony (1)
- Labor Law (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Law and Technology (1)
- Perjury (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Probability (1)
- Procedure (1)
- Products Liability (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- Torts (1)
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxviii—Disclosure Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxviii—Disclosure Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Hon. Gerald Lebovits
No abstract provided.
Jailhouse Informants, Robert M. Bloom
Schultz V. Akzo Nobel Paints: “The Rest Of The Story” Reveals Limited Impact Of Expert Testimony Decision, Richard O. Faulk
Schultz V. Akzo Nobel Paints: “The Rest Of The Story” Reveals Limited Impact Of Expert Testimony Decision, Richard O. Faulk
Richard Faulk
Certainly, a number of lawyers from both sides of the bar believe that the Schultz decision is important. A review of the record in Schultz, however, reveals a relatively easy explanation for the decision—one that undermines its value as precedent. To understand why this is so, we must go back to the district court’s decision to grant Akzo Nobel’s motion for summary judgment and, with apologies to Paul Harvey, appreciate the “rest of the story.”
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxvi—Notices To Admit Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxvi—Notices To Admit Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Hon. Gerald Lebovits
No abstract provided.
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxv—Notices To Admit, Gerald Lebovits
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxv—Notices To Admit, Gerald Lebovits
Hon. Gerald Lebovits
No abstract provided.
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxiv—Summary-Judgment Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Drafting New York Civil-Litigation Documents: Part Xxiv—Summary-Judgment Motions Continued, Gerald Lebovits
Hon. Gerald Lebovits
No abstract provided.
Making Horses Drink: Conceptual Change Theory And Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Liesa L. Richter
Making Horses Drink: Conceptual Change Theory And Federal Rule Of Evidence 502, Liesa L. Richter
Liesa L. Richter
No abstract provided.
Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter
Comment On The Proposed Amendment To Evidence Rule 801(D)(1)(B), Liesa L. Richter
Liesa L. Richter
No abstract provided.
Workplace Data: Law & Litigation (With 2014 Supplement), Robert Sprague
Workplace Data: Law & Litigation (With 2014 Supplement), Robert Sprague
Robert Sprague
Workplace Data: Law and Litigation provides an overview of legal issues associated with employment-related electronically stored information (ESI), focusing on discovery issues in particular. Written for employment and labor law practitioners, this new treatise offers a comprehensive overview of today’s discovery challenges, a detailed statute-by-statute analysis of data retention requirements in federal workplace-related laws, a summary of emerging workplace social media and other technology-related issues and a guide to data protection privacy laws in North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania.
Evidence, Probability, And The Burden Of Proof, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein
Evidence, Probability, And The Burden Of Proof, Ronald J. Allen, Alex Stein
Alex Stein
This Article analyzes the probabilistic and epistemological underpinnings of the burden-of-proof doctrine. We show that this doctrine is best understood as instructing factfinders to determine which of the parties’ conflicting stories makes most sense in terms of coherence, consilience, causality, and evidential coverage. By applying this method, factfinders should try—and will often succeed—to establish the truth, rather than a statistical surrogate of the truth, while securing the appropriate allocation of the risk of error. Descriptively, we argue that this understanding of the doctrine—the “relative plausibility theory”—corresponds to our courts’ practice. Prescriptively, we argue that the relative-plausibility method is operationally superior …