Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Jurors (2)
- Trials (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Admissibility (1)
- Apology (1)
-
- Banking and Finance (1)
- Bankruptcy Law (1)
- Behavior (1)
- Bias (1)
- Civil trials (1)
- Commercial Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- Contracts (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal procedure--Minnesota (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Derecho Procesal Civil (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Dispute Resolution (1)
- Economics (1)
- Employment (1)
- Equity theory (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidentiary rule (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Experimental simulation (1)
- Expert credibility (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman
Valuation Averaging: A New Procedure For Resolving Valuation Disputes, Keith Sharfman
Rutgers Law School (Newark) Faculty Papers
In this Article, Professor Sharfman addresses the problem of "discretionary valuation": that courts resolve valuation disputes arbitrarily and unpredictably, thus harming litigants and society. As a solution, he proposes the enactment of "valuation averaging," a new procedure for resolving valuation disputes modeled on the algorithmic valuation processes often agreed to by sophisticated private firms in advance of any dispute. He argues that by replacing the discretion of judges and juries with a mechanical valuation process, valuation averaging would cause litigants to introduce more plausible and conciliatory valuations into evidence and thereby reduce the cost of valuation litigation and increase the …
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Michigan Law Review
It is often said that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants, defense counsel, and insurers worry that statements of apology will be admissible at trial and will be interpreted by jurors and judges as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, several legal commentators have suggested that disputants in civil lawsuits should be encouraged to apologize to opposing parties. They claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that are intended to encourage and protect apologies by making them inadmissible. In addition, some commentators argue that defendants might …
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Jurors' Evaluations Of Expert Testimony: Judging The Messenger And The Message, Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovic, Valerie P. Hans
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors' reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analysis of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the …
Manual De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Manual De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
No abstract provided.
Cartoon Criminals: The Unclear Future Of Computer Animation In The Minnesota Criminal Courtroom—State V. Stewart, Katherine A. Godden
Cartoon Criminals: The Unclear Future Of Computer Animation In The Minnesota Criminal Courtroom—State V. Stewart, Katherine A. Godden
William Mitchell Law Review
This article examines the development of computerized animation and its use in the legal field. It then analyzes the Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in Stewart and the consequences of that ruling. Finally, the article concludes that the court's decision failed to delineate a test for the district courts to apply when faced with the use of computerized animation in a criminal case.
The Role Of Workplace Culture Evidence In Hostile Workplace Environment Sexual Harassment Litigation: Does Title Vii Mean New Management Or Just Business As Usual?, Christopher Massaro
The Role Of Workplace Culture Evidence In Hostile Workplace Environment Sexual Harassment Litigation: Does Title Vii Mean New Management Or Just Business As Usual?, Christopher Massaro
NYLS Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Articles
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …
Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth
Some Steps Between Attitudes And Verdicts, Phoebe C. Ellsworth
Book Chapters
Most research that has attempted to predict verdict preferences on the basis of stable juror characteristics, such as attitudes and personality traits, has found that individual differences among jurors are not very useful predictors, accounting for only a small proportion of the variance in verdict choices. Some commentators have therefore concluded that verdicts are overwhelmingly accounted for by "the weight of the evidence," and that differences among jurors have negligible effects. But there is a paradox here: In most cases the weight of the evidence is insufficient to produce firstballot unanimity in the jury (Hans & Vidmar, 1986; Hastie, Penrod, …