Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Causal link to alleged injury (1)
- Cyber searches (1)
- Cyberlaw (1)
- Cynara Hermes McQuillan (1)
- Exclusion of evidence (1)
-
- FRE 407 (1)
- Federal Rule of Evidence 407 (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Inconsistent application (1)
- Judicial interpretation (1)
- Limiting Limited Liability (1)
- McQuillan (1)
- Michelle Zakarin (1)
- Officer inadvertence (1)
- Plain view doctrine (1)
- Product liability (1)
- Purposivism (1)
- Requiring What’s Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent and Revisiting Officer Inadvertence in Cyberlaw Cases (1)
- Subsequent remedial measures (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Technology (1)
- Textualism (1)
- Zakarin (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Limiting Limited Liability: Requiring More Than Mere Subsequence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 407, Cynara Hermes Mcquillan
Limiting Limited Liability: Requiring More Than Mere Subsequence Under Federal Rule Of Evidence 407, Cynara Hermes Mcquillan
Scholarly Works
Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the “Subsequent Remedial Measures” Rule, is troubling. This exclusionary rule of evidence prohibits using subsequent remedial measures to demonstrate negligence, culpable conduct, or product defect. But, other than in the title of the rule, the phrase “subsequent remedial measures” does not appear anywhere in the rule’s text and the rule itself does not expressly define what measures fall within its purview. This omission creates space for different judicial interpretations of the rule’s language and ultimately disparate judicial outcomes. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence lend themselves to fact-specific inquiries that can lead …
Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin
Requiring What’S Not Required: Circuit Courts Are Disregarding Supreme Court Precedent And Revisiting Officer Inadvertence In Cyberlaw Cases, Michelle Zakarin
Scholarly Works
As the age of technology has taken this country by surprise and left us with an inability to formally prepare our legal system to incorporate these advances, many courts are forced to adapt by applying pre-technology rules to new technological scenarios. One illustration is the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment. Recently, the issue of officer inadvertence at the time of the search, a rule that the United States Supreme Court has specifically stated is not required in plain view inquiries, has been revisited in cyber law cases. It could be said that the courts interested in the existence …