Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Alltmont v. United States (1)
- Anchor Motor Freight v. Paul (1)
- Bond v. Joyner (1)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Lohman (1)
- Crew v. Nelson (1)
-
- Davenport Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad (1)
- Dial v. Deskins (1)
- Driscoll v. Virginia Electric and Power Co (1)
- Edmonds v. Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative (1)
- Erlich v. Hendrick Construction Co (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Guilford National Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Railway (1)
- Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co. (1)
- Hickman v. Taylor (1)
- Lynchburg Telephone Co. v. Booker (1)
- Massie v. Firmstone (1)
- May v. Malcolm (1)
- McCormick (1)
- McDougall v. Dunn (1)
- Saunders v. Bulluck (1)
- Semones v. Johnson (1)
- Smith v. Combined Insurance Co. of America (1)
- Thomas Organ Co. v. Jadranska Slobodna Plovidba (1)
- Tignor v. Virginia Electric and Power Co (1)
- Virginia Railway and Power Co. v. Godsey (1)
- Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company v. Knight (1)
- Waller v. Waller (1)
- West v. Anderson (1)
- Worrell v. Worrell (1)
- Yates v. Potts (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson
Corporate And Institutional Accident Investigations As Work Product Pursuant To The Rules Of The Supreme Court Of Virginia, William Todd Benson
University of Richmond Law Review
If the magnitude of the mishap so warrants, many businesses immediately call their insurance adjuster or other accident investigator. In some of the larger businesses, accident investigation and insurance have become in-house operations. This quick reflex toward early fact investigation is prompted, in part, by a healthy respect for the potentiality of claims arising out of the day to day conduct of business affairs. When a suit against such company ultimately is ified and discovery sought, an issue often arises concerning whether early institutional investigations are "work product" for purposes of the federal or Virginia rules of civil procedure. This …
The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy
The Preclusiveness Of A Party's Testimony: Sixty Years Of Massie V. Firmstone In Virginia, Ann L. Hardy
University of Richmond Law Review
The rule that a party may rise no higher than his own testimony was first articulated in Virginia in Massie v. Firmstone. It has been criticized, misunderstood, and misapplied, but since its inception in 1922, it has grown into an important rule of evidence and procedure. The practitioner must consider the implications of the rule from the moment he begins to gather evidence that he expects to present in the form of live testimony.