Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Federal Courts - Deposition-Discovery Practice - Rule 26 And Hearsay Evidence, Jamille G. Jamra
Federal Courts - Deposition-Discovery Practice - Rule 26 And Hearsay Evidence, Jamille G. Jamra
Michigan Law Review
In an action for personal injuries suffered in defendant's store, plaintiff moved for an order requiring one Jackson to answer certain questions propounded to him at the taking of his deposition. Jackson, an investigator for defendant's insurer, had ascertained certain facts from witnesses to the accident. The questions, to which Jackson objected on the ground of privilege, sought to elicit the number and names of persons who he learned were present at the accident. Held, the motion should be denied on the ground that the evidence sought was hearsay. Poppino v. Jones Store Co., (D. C. Mo. 1940) …
Trial - Directed Verdict Where Testimony Is Conflicting, Edward S. Biggar
Trial - Directed Verdict Where Testimony Is Conflicting, Edward S. Biggar
Michigan Law Review
Defendants engaged the plaintiff to repair a barn roof. In his suit to recover damages for injuries sustained while on the defendants' premises, the plaintiff testified that he had been struck by a truck which one of the defendants had been driving. The defendants testified that they had discovered the plaintiff lying injured at the side of the barn, near a ladder which had been placed against it. Defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was denied, and after a verdict for the plaintiff, defendants appealed from the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Held, that …
Appeal And Error - Harmless And Prejudicial Error, Michigan Law Review
Appeal And Error - Harmless And Prejudicial Error, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
In the trial of defendant for embezzlement, the prosecutor's opening address to the jury included a hearsay statement, regarding a tacit admission by defendant, tending to establish his guilt. Subsequently in the trial such hearsay statement was not allowed in evidence and the defendant now claims on appeal from conviction that the opening statement was prejudicial and thus he is entitled to a new trial. Held, that the statute governing reversals by an appellate court for prejudicial errors did not apply; and that a new trial follows as a matter of course because of a deprivation of the constitutional …