Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adams v. Star Enterprise (1)
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Fireguard Corp. (1)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. Eaton (1)
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. United Services Automotive Association (1)
- Angstadt v. Atlantic Mutual Insurance (1)
-
- Annual Survey of Virginia Law (1)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1)
- Austin v. Clark Equipment (1)
- Barone v. Rich Brothers Interstate Display Fireworks (1)
- Bashaw v. Bell Hotel Management Co. (1)
- Benitez-Allende v. Alcan Aluminio Do Brasil (1)
- Bentley v. Felts (1)
- Boit v. Gar-Tec Products (1)
- Bregel v. Busch Entertainment Corp. (1)
- Buettner v. RW Martin & Sons (1)
- Bullion v. Gadaleto (1)
- Burger King v. Rudzewicz (1)
- Burroughs v. Palumbo (1)
- Church of Scientology of California v. Adams (1)
- Citizens Bank v. Parham-Woodman Medical Associates (1)
- Clever v. Hillberry (1)
- Cole v. Keller Industries (1)
- Commercial Business Systems v. Bellsouth Services (1)
- Concerned Taxpayers v. County of Brunswick (1)
- Cottrell v. General Systems Software Corp. (1)
- Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Douthat (1)
- Dalmau Rodriguez v. Hughes Aircraft (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Dehmlow v. Austin Fireworks (1)
- Elliott v. Pearl (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
Clinging To History: The Supreme Court (Mis)Interprets Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(1)(B) As Containing A Temporal Requirement, Christopher A. Jones
University of Richmond Law Review
The adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence (the Rules) resulted in a more liberal standard for the admission and use of various forms of evidence. For example, the Rules altered the definition of "relevant evidence" increasing the scope of evidence that can be presented to a jury. Also, the Rules per- mit prior inconsistent statements to be admitted as substantive evidence rather than for impeachment purposes only. The Advisory Committee enunciated these changes, and other changes resulting from the adoption of the Rules, in their notes accompanying the Rules.
Lesnick V. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. - The Pure Stream Of Commerce No Longer Flows Through The Fourth Circuit, Lori Elizabeth Jones
Lesnick V. Hollingsworth & Vose Co. - The Pure Stream Of Commerce No Longer Flows Through The Fourth Circuit, Lori Elizabeth Jones
University of Richmond Law Review
Personal jurisdiction over nonresidents in a forum state has been problematic in our federal system for quite some time. Today, in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the nonresident must have minimum contacts with the forum state. While the test may be stated succinctly, determining whether a person or corporation has minimum contacts with the forum state is an extremely complex process, as seen in the line of personal jurisdiction cases following International Shoe Co. v. Washington.
University Of Richmond Law Review
University Of Richmond Law Review
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, Donald P. Boyle Jr.
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Civil Practice And Procedure, Donald P. Boyle Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
In Burroughs v. Palumbo, defendant was served with process through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The grounds of defense was due to be filed on September 22, 1994. On September 29, 1994, defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court. On September 30, 1994, the state court entered default judgment against defendant. Later that same day, defendant filed the notice of removal with the state court. Between the time that defendant filed the notice of removal in federal court and the time that he filed it with the state court, both courts had jurisdiction over the case; therefore the …