Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

University of Washington School of Law

1977

Journal

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Parol Evidence In Washington: The Use Of Extrinsic Evidence To Address The Integration And Interpretation Of Documents, Arden J. Olson Oct 1977

Parol Evidence In Washington: The Use Of Extrinsic Evidence To Address The Integration And Interpretation Of Documents, Arden J. Olson

Washington Law Review

Washington judicial treatment of these related concerns, the integration and interpretation of written contracts, constitutes the focus of this comment. Part One will distinguish integration from interpretation and highlight factors which bear on the choices between conflicting approaches to extrinsic evidence. Part Two will examine the rules governing the ascertainment of integration, by which courts decide whether the parties embodied their transaction in a written memorial, rendering it subject to the parol evidence rule. Part Three will analyze the analogous rules governing the extent to which a court interpreting the parties' language may look to the circumstances surrounding the document's …


Evidence—Admissibility Of The Victim's Past Sexual Behavior Under Washington's Rape Evidence Law—Wash. Rev. Code § 9.79.150 (1976), Evelyn Sroufe Oct 1977

Evidence—Admissibility Of The Victim's Past Sexual Behavior Under Washington's Rape Evidence Law—Wash. Rev. Code § 9.79.150 (1976), Evelyn Sroufe

Washington Law Review

Although R.C.W. § 9.79.150 deals with many sex crimes, this note is limited to its application in forcible rape cases. Part I examines various exclusionary rules of evidence in order to develop a framework for analysis of Washington's new law. Part II discusses the relevance of the victim's sexual history to her credibility as a witness; it concludes that the complete exclusion of past sexual history to attack credibility may be unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court holding in Davis v. Alaska. On the other hand, Part III suggests that R.C.W. § 9.79.150 should be redrafted to limit further …